Side Gallery: LuthAMF vs Joshpantera

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, Justus said:

 

So how many written spoken words did the Egyptians have?  None.

Egyptians didn't write the "word of god."  And the same god who confused the languages at Babel should have had a firm enough grasp on each of them to have communicated effectively.

[LuthAMF]

6 hours ago, midniterider said:

LF: Mormons are often known as the The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. 

I don't know..... but the bit about Jesus might be an important part of what determines if someone is a Christian?

 

.....

 

No shit. The Baptists and Pentecostals dont even have Jesus Christ in their denominational name. Sounds like they are idolizing their own little organization. At least the Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS church proudly uses the name of their leader in their name. 

Now THAT is some astounding ignorance. Even your own here ought to be correcting you.

[LuthAMF]

6 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

If you tell us we might be less "Ignorant asses"

Nnnnope. At this point I am DEFINITELY going to leave you to it. 

 

***pats their little heads and leaves***

[LogicalFallacy]

25 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Nnnnope. At this point I am DEFINITELY going to leave you to it. 

 

***pats their little heads and leaves***

 

Oh look folks - there he goes. Didn't even leave us with a definition of a true Christian. 

 

Is anyone the wiser as to what criteria is required?

 

Bye Luth. Nice knowing you. If you do feel like coming back and giving us a definition please do. I'm curious as to how you mange to exclude 99% of recognized Christianity from your definition.

 

Also, what is your denomination? 

 

Peace.

[LuthAMF]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Oh look folks - there he goes. Didn't even leave us with a definition of a true Christian. 

 

Is anyone the wiser as to what criteria is required?

 

Bye Luth. Nice knowing you. If you do feel like coming back and giving us a definition please do. I'm curious as to how you mange to exclude 99% of recognized Christianity from your definition.

 

Also, what is your denomination? 

 

Peace.

LF, at this point I simply must ask why you are being purposely contrary? In the examples given:

1) Non-trinitarian

2) Roman Catholic

3) Unitarians

4) Mormons

 

granted, only one is utterly outside Christianity and cannot even be considered Christian and that is Mormonism. Stretch and mold that one any way you please but it is NOT Christian. 

 

But here's the scensrio:

Person A asks Person B "Are you Christian?"

B: Yes!

A: Great. So you believe on Jesus?

B: Oh, Jesus never actually existed.

A: Pardon me?

B: I'm of the Church of the Non-Existent Christ. 

A: So you're not Christian? 

B: Of course I am.

 

 

A then encounters Person C.

A: Are you Christian?

C replies "Yes" 

A: May I ask what you believe about Jesus?

C. He's the one who killed some bull and became a god.

A: ??? Who has told you this?

C. My church. 

A: Your church?

C. Yes. The Church of the Mithra Jesus.

A:

 

 

Person A to Person D

 

A: Please, are you a Christian?

D. Of course.

A: And believe on Jesus as told in scripture?

D. I don't believe the bible.

A: But you're still Christian?

D. Of course.

A: And attend church?

D. No. I don't trust organized religion or church.

 

Without all the harshness and insult, please tell me how or if I am misrepresenting your position.

Are these not potential scenarios If what you say is true?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

7 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

LF, at this point I simply must ask why you are being purposely contrary?

 

Haha, pot calling kettle black there mate... that aside let us continue.

 

7 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

In the examples given:

1) Non-trinitarian

2) Roman Catholic

3) Unitarians

4) Mormons

 

granted, only one is utterly outside Christianity and cannot even be considered Christian and that is Mormonism. Stretch and mold that one any way you please but it is NOT Christian.

 

I'll repeat my request for your definition of Christian. I have no doubt that Mormons are outside your definition, but without knowing yours and comparing it to a general definition and considering the differences we are going to get nowhere.

 

7 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

But here's the scensrio:

Person A asks Person B "Are you Christian?"

B: Yes!

A: Great. So you believe on Jesus?

B: Oh, Jesus never actually existed.

A: Pardon me?

B: I'm of the Church of the Non-Existent Christ. 

A: So you're not Christian? 

B: Of course I am.

 

 

A then encounters Person C.

A: Are you Christian?

C replies "Yes" 

A: May I ask what you believe about Jesus?

C. He's the one who killed some bull and became a god.

A: ??? Who has told you this?

C. My church. 

A: Your church?

C. Yes. The Church of the Mithra Jesus.

A:

 

 

Person A to Person D

 

A: Please, are you a Christian?

D. Of course.

A: And believe on Jesus as told in scripture?

D. I don't believe the bible.

A: But you're still Christian?

D. Of course.

A: And attend church?

D. No. I don't trust organized religion or church.

 

Without all the harshness and insult, please tell me how or if I am misrepresenting your position.

Are these not potential scenarios If what you say is true?

 

I don't think those examples are misrepresenting my position per se, they might be misrepresenting those who claim to be Christian.

 

Scenario 1) Cannot be a Christian because that would require you believe in Jesus to some extent. This reminds me of a discussion I've had with @Joshpantera regarding a friend of his who calls himself an "Atheist Christian". I say the term is mutually exclusive and meaningless. You cannot be an atheist Christian by definition. (Now I'm sounding like you lol )

 

Scenario 2) Again, pretty sure this is a strawman of some position. I don't know of any Church who actually claims "Mithra Jesus". I think you might be having a poke at Catholic doctrine there? If so it's strawmaned beyond recognition. But anyone saying they believe in Mithra Jesus who was killed by a bull... pretty sure they are Mithraic not Christian.

 

Scenario 3) The only problem with person D's position in claiming to be a Christian is that they don't believe the bible. While we could get into semantics of what "believe the bible" means, I would say some grounding of your religion on the bible is necessary to claim you are a Christian.

 

So no these are not potential scenarios if what I say is true. I hold certain baselines for determining whether a persons claim that they are Christian is founded. I just don't have a strict set of doctrinal criteria like you would appear to.

 

If you'll indulge me can you give your opinion in the scenario I gave a few posts ago? I present it again below:

 

I believe the bible literally. Genesis is literal. I believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

I believe in baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ per Acts 2:38 for salvation and the remission of sins.

I believe in receiving gifts of the Spirit per Acts 2

I believe God sends prophet's and preachers with messengers in each age for the chosen of God.

I believe in the laying on of hands and healing the sick.

I believe that sin was brought into the world when Even had sex with the serpent. This doctrine is known as Serpents seed.

I believe that in the last days the chosen will be 'raptured' or 'translated'  per 1 Thessalonians 4:17

I believe that there is one God and that the doctrine of the trinity is of the devil. God is one, but manifests in three persons being the Father, the son and the Holy Ghost. 

 

I call myself a born again Christian. Do I meet your criteria for Christian? Why, Why not?

 

I have a few other avenues of enquiry I'd like to go down, but we'll deal with the above first.

[LuthAMF]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I'll repeat my request for your definition of Christian. I have no doubt that Mormons are outside your definition, but without knowing yours and comparing it to a general definition and considering the differences we are going to get nowhere.

Well, there are certainly the positive confessions that spell out what scripture teaches but those also identify what falls outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy...a horrible word to most here, I'm sure. But see, "knowing yours and comparing it to a general definition" will NOT be helpful because #1 it is not my definition and #2 a general definition can be the problem as observed above. Now, lest you think I'm dodging the issue, I point you to the best Creeds and Confessions e.g. Westminster,  Heidelberg, Belgic etc. Of course, this sparks a whole new controversy....

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Haha, pot calling kettle black there mate... that aside let us continue.

I am not contrary just due to the fact that it's you. It seems I am wrong by virtue of saying something.

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

You cannot be an atheist Christian by definition. (Now I'm sounding like you lol )

Not necessarily a bad thing for me being a "pot".

 

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Scenario 2) Again, pretty sure this is a strawman of some position. I don't know of any Church who actually claims "Mithra Jesus". I think you might be having a poke at Catholic doctrine there? If so it's strawmaned beyond recognition. But anyone saying they believe in Mithra Jesus who was killed by a bull... pretty sure they are Mithraic not Christian.

I used this example because this is one of the charges against Christianity that it borrows heavily from Mithraism in order to construct the Jesus myth. Surely you're familiar with this and may have used it yourself.

 

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Scenario 3) The only problem with person D's position in claiming to be a Christian is that they don't believe the bible. While we could get into semantics of what "believe the bible" means, I would say some grounding of your religion on the bible is necessary to claim you are a Christian.

Exactly my point in all examples. Thank you for acknowledging this.

 

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

If you'll indulge me can you give your opinion in the scenario I gave a few posts ago? I present it again below:

Wow. I totally missed this post. Sorry.

I will address but at presents  I'm not going to compromise my main focus in the debate with Joshpantera. You understand. But i hope what I've offered here is acceptable so far.

[Justus]

Didn't Jesus described Christians as those who due to their unbelief didn't have faith as a gain of a mustard seed.  

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

6 minutes ago, Justus said:

Didn't Jesus described Christians as those who due to their unbelief didn't have faith as a gain of a mustard seed.  

 

 

No. 'Christians' were not a group until the early church organised and referred to themselves as such. Jesus said if you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can unto a tree be moved into the sea and it will be done. 

 

Luke 17:6

He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you.

 

As an aside I've never heard of a verified account of this happening therefore we can conclude no one has had faith the size of a mustard seed. 

[Justus]

1 minute ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

No. 'Christians' were not a group until the early church organised and referred to themselves as such. Jesus said if you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can unto a mountain be moved into the sea and it will be done. 

 

As an aside I've never heard of a verified account of this happening therefore we can conclude no one has had faith the size of a mustard seed. 

 

Matt 17:19-20
19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

 

Acts 11:26
And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

2 minutes ago, Justus said:

 

Matt 17:19-20
19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

 

Acts 11:26
And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

 

 

I knew there was a verse about moving mountains! My point stands. 

[Justus]

1 minute ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I knew there was a verse about moving mountains! My point stands. 

LOL

[LogicalFallacy]

2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Well, there are certainly the positive confessions that spell out what scripture teaches but those also identify what falls outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy...a horrible word to most here, I'm sure. But see, "knowing yours and comparing it to a general definition" will NOT be helpful because #1 it is not my definition and #2 a general definition can be the problem as observed above. Now, lest you think I'm dodging the issue, I point you to the best Creeds and Confessions e.g. Westminster,  Heidelberg, Belgic etc. Of course, this sparks a whole new controversy....

 

What I am getting at is that it's possible to define Christian is such a way that it essentially excludes everyone not of ones particular doctrine. This is problematic don't you think. Take my ex church - no one was true Christians except them.

 

It's like defining a human as a bipedal upright hairless primate that is white.... bit of a problem there excluding the others just cause they are not white? You see what I'm getting at, and why I'm so interested in how you determine if one is a Christian or not. Lets not call it a definition, maybe a set of criteria, or a set of belief's necessary to be a Christian.

 

2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

I am not contrary just due to the fact that it's you. It seems I am wrong by virtue of saying something.

 

Nah, just a lot of the stuff you say is wrong.

 

2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Not necessarily a bad thing for me being a "pot".

 

 

2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

I used this example because this is one of the charges against Christianity that it borrows heavily from Mithraism in order to construct the Jesus myth. Surely you're familiar with this and may have used it yourself.

 

Ok, but using this in this situation is unfair. One of the charges against flat earthers is that they think gravity is fake. But not every flat earther uses that argument so its pointless using it unless that is their position. I've never once used Mithraism as an argument against Christianity. I've studied what people say about the ANE cults and their similarities and differences, but I am exceptionally cautious in using them as an argument. I don't hold that Jesus necessarily is all myth. I think it quite possible a person, possibly even called Jesus (Or the Hebrew equivalent) existed and preached, and people wrote about this and embellished stories about it. Thus we re walking on water, resurrection, water into wine etc. (All things that other religious cult deities did in some form I might add). The same thing has happened twice in the last two centuries that I'm aware of. First with Joseph Smith for whom we share contempt for, and With a guy you probably haven't heard of called William Branham who reportedly did great miracles. So much so that over 4 million people today believe it and follow his message. So real people preaching and having followers construct fantastic stories about them and those stories believed decades later is not unusual.

 

2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Exactly my point in all examples. Thank you for acknowledging this.

 

I'd ben interested in having an informed member of each of those examples come here and address your charges directly. Probably wouldn't happen but it would be interesting.

 

2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Wow. I totally missed this post. Sorry.

I will address but at presents  I'm not going to compromise my main focus in the debate with Joshpantera. You understand. But i hope what I've offered here is acceptable so far.

 

If you can find the time to come back to that scenario I'd appreciate it. It of course all ties into exactly how you determine someone is a Christian. You may have guessed but the list of beliefs I gave is a set from my ex church so am interested whether you'd call them Christians.

 

Cheers

LF

[LuthAMF]

36 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Ok, but using this in this situation is unfair.

Unfair???? Have you been reading the crap that's being passed off as biblical understanding here? 

 

38 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I'd ben interested in having an informed member of each of those examples come here and address your charges directly. Probably wouldn't happen but it would be interesting.

Why? You don't allow that there are "informed members" of Christianity when we address your charges directly.

[LogicalFallacy]

18 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Unfair???? Have you been reading the crap that's being passed off as biblical understanding here? 

 

Unfair was the wrong term. Incorrectly applying your example is more to the point. Unless one of the examples originally cited (Was it by MWC... or Midnite? I forget who) actually has that as their doctrine you are simply making shit up then telling us our examples are wrong.

 

And biblical understanding is such a finicky thing - everyone has a different understanding. I have a standing challenge for any "Christian". Explain why you are special. Why should I accept your position over anyone else's? Can you actually show that you have the correct interpretation as opposed to all the other 'correct interpretations' out there?

 

Some believe the bible should be understood as written, and no interpretation is needed. Other believe you need the spirit of god to reveal the true understanding of the scriptures. Others.... you get the point. Who is correct? You tell me.

 

18 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Why? You don't allow that there are "informed members" of Christianity when we address your charges directly.

 

By informed I mean someone familiar with actual doctrine of their church and is thus able to argue effectively against someone such as yourself when you bring a charge of them not being Christian.

 

So for example a Catholic Priest or a Non Trinitarian pastor etc

 

[mwc]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Unfair was the wrong term. Incorrectly applying your example is more to the point. Unless one of the examples originally cited (Was it by MWC... or Midnite? I forget who) actually has that as their doctrine you are simply making shit up then telling us our examples are wrong.

 

     It wasn't me.  I think it was MR who was tossing out things like Mormons and whatnot.  I'm not sure how Mithras wound up in the mix though since I don't recall ever seeing it mentioned.  I guess only @LuthAMF knows why he chose to use it.  Maybe he's a mind-reader and knows I recently visited a number of Mithraeums in Rome?

 

          mwc

 

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, mwc said:

     It wasn't me.  I think it was MR who was tossing out things like Mormons and whatnot.  I'm not sure how Mithras wound up in the mix though since I don't recall ever seeing it mentioned.  I guess only @LuthAMF knows why he chose to use it.  Maybe he's a mind-reader and knows I recently visited a number of Mithraeums in Rome?

 

          mwc

 

 

Hence my "unfair" comment. Midnite (We'll assume it was him for now) was pointing out various groups claim to be Christians. Luth then gave that Mithras example which is imo ridiculous. You might as well claim we think Hindus are Christians.

 

I think most of us know the difference between ancient cults and the newer cults.

[mwc]

15 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Hence my "unfair" comment. Midnite (We'll assume it was him for now) was pointing out various groups claim to be Christians. Luth then gave that Mithras example which is imo ridiculous. You might as well claim we think Hindus are Christians.

 

I think most of us know the difference between ancient cults and the newer cults.

     All that's going to keep happening is he, like pretty much all the xians that come here, aren't going to expose their particular beliefs for examination and they'll just make presumptions on what we used to believe based on the non-xian things we say.

 

     I though it was pretty clear we never thought these groups were "true christians" when we were believers but nowadays there's no real reason to actually differentiate.  I currently could not care less that Mormons consider themselves xians although this was a major issue when I believed and there were many study groups about them and their false cult (among others).  So I answer questions in such a way that reflect my current attitude not my former one.  If someone mistakes these two they'll think that I always held my current attitude towards Mormons, or any other similar subject, which will cause them to draw the wrong conclusions.  Since I assume others here I are doing pretty much the same thing that means we're all kind of in the same boat.

 

     Of course this Mithras cult sort of comes out of left field.  If I were to say that I truly believe that xianity came from Mithras cult would it matter?  I'm not saying I believe that I do but I'm asking if it would matter?  I didn't believe it when I was a xian.  It wasn't something that caused me to not believe.  It wasn't an issue at all.  So if I came to believe it yesterday after being out of the church for a decade and a half does it change anything that happened?  The only thing it relates to is the question of what constitutes a true xian and so far we haven't gotten a straight answer on that.  If I had a straight answer, like a list of bullet points or something, then I might have to re-evaluate my imaginary position on xianity originating from Mithras.

 

          mwc

 

[LogicalFallacy]

@mwc Exactly my thoughts. That's why I've been at pains to point out that one group says another isn't Christian, but from the outside ya'll all Christian - just with different flavors. That's why I want his definition.

 

As far as I'm aware all the groups that Midnite mentioned call themselves Christians, or have beliefs pertaining to Christianity. Even if someone doesn't identify as a Christian, if they believe that Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead for their salvation... congratulations they are Christian. It's like people (And I might tread on toes here) saying they aren't atheist. Well I don't 'identify' as one as a fundamental part of me, but if you answer "no" to a simple question then you are by definition atheist. Maybe not "an atheist" but atheist nevertheless. Do you believe in any God or Gods? Yes, you are theist, no you are atheist.

 

As a Christian (Probably not a True (TM) one) I believed that Catholics were essentially Pagan Rome wrapped up in Christian silk so to speak. The Mormons.... gahh they were't Christians. They were whack jobs following a false prophet. Meanwhile I believed that William Branham was a prophet of God - and he came along with some pretty fucked up doctrines! Oh an denominational Christians? They had given in to organisation and the mark of the beast.

 

Think of Muslims. If you hear someone claim to be a Muslim you don't down your list of criteria... are you Sunni or Shiite? Do you support Sharia law? You don't? YOU ARE NOT A TRUE MUSLIM. And they do have these internal arguments, but from the outside they are all Muslims of different flavours.

 

Right I think that's enough for one day. I had hopped Luth would give us some definition/criteria, we did seem to converse much better than we have in the past, but alas I am none the wiser. I couldn't pick a true christian from a bar of soap.

[Joshpantera]

Luth, what's the deal? Are you gonna throw us a bone here and tell us what you think a "real christian" is or not? At least William declared his Calvinism and made clear to some extent what he thinks a "real christian" is. To him a "real christian" is predestined. 

 

And to you???????

[LuthAMF]

10 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

13 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Well, there are certainly the positive confessions that spell out what scripture teaches but those also identify what falls outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy...a horrible word to most here, I'm sure. But see, "knowing yours and comparing it to a general definition" will NOT be helpful because #1 it is not my definition and #2 a general definition can be the problem as observed above. Now, lest you think I'm dodging the issue, I point you to the Creeds and Confessions e.g. Westminster,  Heidelberg, Belgic etc. Of course, this sparks a whole new controversy....

 

What I am getting at is that it's possible to define Christian is such a way that it essentially excludes everyone not of ones particular doctrine. This is problematic don't you think. Take my ex church - no one was true Christians except them.

 

It's like defining a human as a bipedal upright hairless primate that is white.... bit of a problem there excluding the others just cause they are not white? You see what I'm getting at, and why I'm so interested in how you determine if one is a Christian or not. Lets not call it a definition, maybe a set of criteria, or a set of belief's necessary to be a Christian.

Ok. I dont understand. I specifically state that "lest you think I'm dodging the issue" - that being a defined Christianity - and then point the historic Confessions of Faith which is exactly a set of criteria, or a set of belief's necessary to be a Christian. 

But you're all still asking me for my definition. 

 

Every system includes and excludes. Everybody understands if you apply golf rules to baseball you're no longer playing baseball. Or eliminate the bases, the game can no longer make sense. 

 

So someone could watch this new game, go back and read the actual rule book and neither makes any sense.

 

Now I'm not making a one-to-one direct comparion but something else has been introduced in the first case and something removed in the second. What some add to and some remove from can only be determined upon examination according to the Official Rules. Questionable things refer to the rules. 

 

I am fairly certain that very very few attended a Confessional church and very few "in church" have ever been examined so who knows what they introduce or remove. But now I know you will instantly charge textual corruption etc etc but this is where Textual work and the science of Hermeneutics and exegesis come in. But those are jokes here. 

 

I think  most here hold that there is no historical truth and accuracy so everything; absolutely everything is subject to our 21st century interpretation. Prove this for me, please.

 

At any rate, the idea is that there is nothing definitive about Christianity and that you were justified in adding or removing as you saw fit and thus abandoned the whole. Ones actually playing Golf-ball with no bases still could say they thought they were playing baseball if they never saw a Rulebook.

 

And further, LF, you say

"It's like defining a human as a bipedal upright hairless primate that is white.... bit of a problem there excluding the others just cause they are not white? You see what I'm getting at..."

No, I'm afraid I don't and neither should anyone else. This is another serious category error. Humans are instantly recognizable and no one questions when they see one. It is not so with the Christian. But yiu know this.

[LogicalFallacy]

2 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Ok. I dont understand. I specifically state that "lest you think I'm dodging the issue" - that being a defined Christianity - and then point the historic Confessions of Faith which is exactly a set of criteria, or a set of belief's necessary to be a Christian. 

But you're all still asking me for my definition. 

 

Every system includes and excludes. Everybody understands if you apply golf rules to baseball you're no longer playing baseball. Or eliminate the bases, the game can no longer make sense. 

 

So someone could watch this new game, go back and read the actual rule book and neither makes any sense.

 

Now I'm not making a one-to-one direct comparion but something else has been introduced in the first case and something removed in the second. What some add to and some remove from can only be determined upon examination according to the Official Rules. Questionable things refer to the rules. 

 

I am fairly certain that very very few attended a Confessional church and very few "in church" have ever been examined so who knows what they introduce or remove. But now I know you will instantly charge textual corruption etc etc but this is where Textual work and the science of Hermeneutics and exegesis come in. But those are jokes here. 

 

I think  most here hold that there is no historical truth and accuracy so everything; absolutely everything is subject to our 21st century interpretation. Prove this for me, please.

 

At any rate, the idea is that there is nothing definitive about Christianity and that you were justified in adding or removing as you saw fit and thus abandoned the whole. Ones actually playing Golf-ball with no bases still could say they thought they were playing baseball if they never saw a Rulebook.

 

And further, LF, you say

"It's like defining a human as a bipedal upright hairless primate that is white.... bit of a problem there excluding the others just cause they are not white? You see what I'm getting at..."

No, I'm afraid I don't and neither should anyone else. This is another serious category error. Humans are instantly recognizable and no one questions when they see one. It is not so with the Christian. But yiu know this.

Luth this is a huge amount of side stepping and incorrect assumptions on your part in order to avoid a very simple task.

 

Imagine if you'd put in as much effort telling us how you determine if someone is a Christian as you did making this post - we'd all know what you think a Christian is. 

 

You entirely miss or ignore the point. I don't want to know what some rule book says I want to know what you think. 

 

The amount of dancing about over a simple question is mind boggling.

[LuthAMF]

5 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Imagine if you'd put in as much effort telling us how you determine if someone is a Christian as you did making this post - we'd all know what you think a Christian is. 

 

You entirely miss or ignore the point. I don't want to know what some rule book says I want to know what you think. 

 

The amount of dancing about over a simple question is mind boggling.

I. Just. Told. You. 

I did no dancing. READ THE CONFESSIONS and you know what I think. More issues? Yes. But I answered you directly. Clear now?

Christianity is Confessional. I look to the Historic confessions because it doesn't matter what I think. 

The Confessions of Faith; Westminster for example, are not individual guys writing down what they think. Do you know how Westminster came to be and how long it took to formulate? This isn't speculation. 

 

The problem is, the Church(es) you atrended were more than likely non-Confessional. So what did you have? Precisely what youre asking for. 

"Hey, Bob. Tell me what you think."

"Hey John,  what do you think?"

Etc etc.

Confusion. Leading to you saying "I dont know what to think. "

[midniterider]

We all saw the rulebook. Most of us went to mainstream churches and got exegeted at every Sunday by the preacher and church members. What I find disturbing is that a Christian cannot accept the fact that a True Believer could leave the faith. 

 

Apparently being a True Christian means being dishonest to ones self and dishonest to other people when flaws in the bible and church culture appear. Being a True Christian means creating whatever nonsense in your head to plug the holes in logic and reason. 

 

While still a Christian, I dont think I would have used the NTS fallacy or created a mental gymnasium to try to understand people who denied the faith. I probably would have just accepted that they were once a believer and stopped believing. Why is it such a big deal to a Christian when ex-Christians say they WERE believers but now they AREN'T? 

 

edit. If you're strong in the faith you don't give a shit what an ex-Christian says. If you're strong in the faith you dont visit ex-Christian websites. You're too busy praising God and doing all that good stuff for your community.

 

[LuthAMF]

46 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Apparently being a True Christian means being dishonest to ones self and dishonest to other people when flaws in the bible and church culture appear. Being a True Christian means creating whatever nonsense in your head to plug the holes in logic and reason. 

YES! There's the answer.