Find the enemy...

[DomainRider]

... This is subsequently why we are not to judge, because we have no true idea of what another man's 'best' looks like. Just because another man's best does not look like what you are capable of in a half hearted attempt does not mean that because you may have done more, you are more righteous or more in God's favor. Just the opposite is true.

OK.

I believe that asking questions is an important process in the transition of faith. I also believe that there is an answer to every question we could ask. I also believe that no one person can answer all of those questions. This is why it is important to differ or to research rather than to simply go for the "win' in an argument.

Fine sentiments. Some care required - ISTR a highway paved with good intentions

 

[drich0150]

Because lots of Jesus parables did not include the Name of God. But they were still about God. Just like Christ, ANY Christian can make an illustrating story based on faith and knowledge (called a parable) to teach and that story is Godly if it holds up against Scripture (the Word of God). This one does. But this is what you do not see.
Betcha He says you both were right AND you both were wrong. Peace and Grace be unto you, brother.

If you want that ten page plus paper, let me know.

Moo ha ha ha

And the doors of the "trap" slam closed!

If you truly felt that God was best represented in Story, or in a discussion where no mention of God took place then why is there a 20,000 plus character response that mentions The Father Son and Spirit, references to different passages and your best interpretations of them, plugging up this thread?

Could the reason possibly be; when one is confronted by a conflict that can be resolved by scripture, then to the servant, scripture is used to resolve the conflict?

Again here, why did we not go off onto some other parable, or discuss a non God topic when trying to discern a common understanding to this God related discussion?

It seems as if you wanted to present your best arguments to win over your brother. Is it the lost you deem unworthy of such efforts? or simply those in whom you deem to be hopelessly lost, that do not deserve your best efforts? Or at least the opportunity to experience these efforts?

If there was a "trap" or a hidden point it was this fact. I simply wanted to illustrate the lengths you were willing to goto to prove yourself worthy, your competence, and your primary method of rebuttal when your faith or understanding of it was challenged..

Yet as your first two posts point out, this is not necessary when dealing with those you deem to be unworthy, Pharisees, collage professor types and the like. It seems as if you prefer a method of discussion that can potentially hide the message of God from those who need it most.

There was alot of activity in this thread from me and two admitted atheists, one being a "professor." (The OP) My initial opinion of both were that they were here simply trying to stir the pot, and presented arguments for the sake of arguing. Yet they continually asked questions. Questions that I had answers to. Because I am not in a position to deny another man what was freely given to me, I was obligated to share, to the point that I was forced to reevaluate my prejudice.

In the end I believe that all parties took something away from this topic that perhaps he did not expect to find when he first entered. If you will take some time and read some of these post, you will note that none of this happened because I decided to take it upon my self to invent a new parable, nor did I decide to try and break them in open argument, and beat them publicly with their own closely held beliefs.
Granted we did not see eye to eye all of the time and we did go back and forth alittle. I like to think that in the end what saw us through was, every time a question was asked an answer was given, not always a right or even a good answer, but the effort was there. What's more it was to the same level or degree that I write to you now. I held nothing back nor did I pull and punches.

Why doesn't your story make a good parable? Simply because it does not teach these fundamental principles: We are to give according to how we have prospered, we are to walk that extra mile, we are to not only give up our cloak but our tunic as well, we are to turn the other cheek, and do all of these things until their is nothing left. It sacrifices all of these critical principles to highlight the one principle that justifies the flourishment of pride.

I have said my peace, and will leave you with one final thought,
Those who sow sparingly will reap sparingly.
If I am to be made a fool in front of my peers everyday for the rest of my life for believing in God and answering questions that I know to answer, then I can truly say this was a life well spent.

 

[DomainRider]

My initial opinion of both were that they were here simply trying to stir the pot...

Sometimes when the pot is stirred, tasty chunks come to the surface. If not, one can usually find something to chew on

 

[sterken7983]

If the OP was posting something that happened to him instead of a story (which I took it to be), if this was in fact something that happened to him and he was wondering why the student didn't tell him about God, then yes, I still stick to my original answer that the student returned the rhetoric to the professor accordingly.

If the professor than asked will you teach me about your God? I think the student should surely do so.

And if this was really an experience the professor had and NOT a story(which I thought it was) and he is here because he wants to learn about God, then yes, I agree also, we as Christians are BOUND by faith to inform him.

All these things were stated in my previous posts as well.

 

[sterken7983]

To drich0150

Simply go back and read my original posts. You have absolutely missed the point.

If you don't get my point, then simply accept that you don't.

THAT'S my point.

 

[sterken7983]

To JGG: (if you're still reading this thread)

You said earlier:

"Who am I to say that any of them are not Christian? All I can do is take them at their word. As I just said above, I don't get on board with the True Christian thing, every Christian believes themselves and those who agree with him to be a True Christian."

Actually, you DON'T have to take a Christian by his word. You can spot a Christian with simple questions:

Are they loving (meaning kind, humble, treat me with respect, treat me like a regular human being?)

Are they patient? Are they humble?

These are the most basic principles Christ told us to present in ourselves as Christians (He tells us this in the Bible.) So that you DO have a way to judge whether or not you someone is a True Christian. Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming form, it's not like they have a halo over their head for you to see so I understand what you mean that you can't full well know if ANY man is truly what he claims to be.

But look at someone like Barack Obama: He wins the Nobel Peace Prize because he claims to be a man of peace. He says we will pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, he takes action against Iran. So his ACTIONS do not correlate with his words. You can judge a Christian the same way.

you also said:

"As I just said above, I don't get on board with the True Christian thing, every Christian believes themselves and those who agree with him to be a True Christian."

This is what you know about Christians. Okay, what you just said, the "every Christian believes themselves and those who agree with him to be a True Christian" part: that is the textbook defenition of a "fake christian" or worldly christian. This, unfortunately, means that the majority of Christians you have had contact with or watched have exhibited this kind of behavior. It is defenitely wrong and does NOT make God happy. Sadly, I see a lot of that too.

Here is how you can tell a True Christian: A TRUE Christian believes NOT EVEN HIMSELF but ONLY the Holy Bible to be truth. Likewise, a True Christian only believes those who BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY TRUTH are also True Christians.

Because in our faith, we believe when the Bible tells us that every man is a liar (including ourselves!) which means that we cannot even trust ourselves because we also abide in a sinful flesh body. This means that only by our faith and humility before the Lord and accepting His Word can we ever hope to know the truth.

I was rereading stuff here to better understand a line of conversation I was having with an individual and I realized that somehow you had gotten completely left behind in the conversation and I have not yet had a chance to speak with you... so if you're still here, hope that adds at least a little clarity to a religion that, for worldly reasons, has splintered into a million different shards. This is what makes it so hard for True Christians to witness properly: because most people's experiences are that christianity is a group of people arguing amongst themselves.

Anyway, hope this helps if you're still watching the thread.

 

[drich0150]

To drich0150

Simply go back and read my original posts. You have absolutely missed the point.

If you don't get my point, then simply accept that you don't.

THAT'S my point.

I completely understand your stated point, I have also addressed the true nature of your posts as well. If there is nothing else I can help you with, I will be happy to leave you with your closing thoughts.

 

[JGG]

Sorry, been away on business.

So you are saying all who represent themselves as something, have automatically been given this status, despite their actual status or actions. If this is the case then I should also like to be known as a professor of psychology, and a Dr of Atheistic studies!

No. As a non-Christian, I accept anyone who declares that Jesus is their saviour as a Christian. If you require more then that's up to you, but that's my definion of a Christian.

One would think if someone truly was looking for answers, he would not pass up the opportunity to search for them at the source.

Not all sources wish to speak with non-Chrisitans, especially those who speak ill of non-Christians. Afterall, I'm sure plenty have read the story in question and "know" what people like me are like.

All that was accomplished was that you pointed out a non christian behavior and ask why all christians do this. Not only are you asking why, you are holding the whole of christianity to a standard in which you have created. It's like asking why do all black people eat Sushi, because you saw a family of black people eating at a sushi place a few different times.

You are creating your own stereotype and holding all of us accountable to it. The true irony is, this is the same behavior you are up in arms about, when it is focused on who you fancy yourself to be.

I disagree. For one, I came to you with actual Christian dialogue, and actual Christian context to make my point. I did not create a Christian strawman so that I could put words in his mouth, I let this Christian, and those that spread his word do the talking, and that's where my problem lies. I did not create the Christian I wished to defeat, I pointed out the Christian I currently have a problem with.

Secondly, I did not simply pass this around to other atheists as a joke, talking behind your back, while preaching love and forgiveness. I came to a Christian forum, and specifically directed my problems to Christians themselves, so that they knew where I stood. I did not gossip behind your back, I brought this to the attention of Christians so that those who engaged in such gossip, or did not knew how people such as I viewed such nonsense. Those who did not could challenge the view.

I do not have to be the professor I claim to be to see that, it is not the standard you are up in arms about. It seems to be the fact that it is you who is in the cross hairs.

No, what bothers me is the manner in which I hear about such complaints. If you want to accuse me of something, be brave enough to do it to my face. Don't cower behind emailed strawman charactures, and "Christian Only" forums. I shouldn't hear about such "jokes" from a site that I thought was for computer troubleshooting.

No but you found an example of a straw man Christian and want to know why we are all like that.. To the point (as your first response in your last post points out) you will not investigate the possibility that you are hold the whole of Christianity to a straw man someone else has constructed.

No. For starters, the story in question was written by an actual Christian. It was passed along by actual Christians to actual Christians. It is not a strawman, these people actually exist. They preach what they preach.

What I'm saying is that I am not willing to disqualify someone as being a Christian just because you, or I don't like him. If he takes Christ as his saviour, then that alone qualifies him as a Christian in my eyes. His individual theology beyond that doesn't matter to me. Yes, there are Christians I like, and Christians I don't like. That doesn't make either one, more or less a Christian.

I does take time. Though It only happens if you keep trying to apply this principle in your life.

Yes, but that assumes that between now and the time I grant forgiveness, some new problem will arise.

 

[JGG]

To JGG: (if you're still reading this thread)

You said earlier:

"Who am I to say that any of them are not Christian? All I can do is take them at their word. As I just said above, I don't get on board with the True Christian thing, every Christian believes themselves and those who agree with him to be a True Christian."

Actually, you DON'T have to take a Christian by his word. You can spot a Christian with simple questions:

Are they loving (meaning kind, humble, treat me with respect, treat me like a regular human being?)

Are they patient? Are they humble?

These are the most basic principles Christ told us to present in ourselves as Christians (He tells us this in the Bible.) So that you DO have a way to judge whether or not you someone is a True Christian. Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming form, it's not like they have a halo over their head for you to see so I understand what you mean that you can't full well know if ANY man is truly what he claims to be.

If this is true, then it conforms to my theory about True Christians: There are none.

you also said:

"As I just said above, I don't get on board with the True Christian thing, every Christian believes themselves and those who agree with him to be a True Christian."

This is what you know about Christians. Okay, what you just said, the "every Christian believes themselves and those who agree with him to be a True Christian" part: that is the textbook defenition of a "fake christian" or worldly christian.

I think you will find, that it is also the necessary definition of a "True Christian." One cannot define a True Christian without declaring themselves, and those who agree with them to be one. Afterall, if you do not believe yourself (and those like you) to be a True Christian, then why are you not one?

This, unfortunately, means that the majority of Christians you have had contact with or watched have exhibited this kind of behavior. It is defenitely wrong and does NOT make God happy. Sadly, I see a lot of that too.

Here is how you can tell a True Christian: A TRUE Christian believes NOT EVEN HIMSELF but ONLY the Holy Bible to be truth. Likewise, a True Christian only believes those who BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY TRUTH are also True Christians.

Because in our faith, we believe when the Bible tells us that every man is a liar (including ourselves!) which means that we cannot even trust ourselves because we also abide in a sinful flesh body. This means that only by our faith and humility before the Lord and accepting His Word can we ever hope to know the truth.

So a True Christian does not believe Christ, but believes the Bible?

I was rereading stuff here to better understand a line of conversation I was having with an individual and I realized that somehow you had gotten completely left behind in the conversation and I have not yet had a chance to speak with you... so if you're still here, hope that adds at least a little clarity to a religion that, for worldly reasons, has splintered into a million different shards. This is what makes it so hard for True Christians to witness properly: because most people's experiences are that christianity is a group of people arguing amongst themselves.

So, you're saying that you are a True Christian, and all of those other guys aren't?

Anyway, hope this helps if you're still watching the thread.

Honestly? No. No offense, but what have you said here that is substantially different from all of the "fake Christians?" Simply put, you've said that you're right, for reason x, and they're wrong. You want to convince me that Christianity isn't a body fighting among themselves, split into a "million shards," but you're also trying to convince me that most "Christians" are wrong in their faith.

That just strikes me as contradictory.

 

[drich0150]

No. As a non-Christian, I accept anyone who declares that Jesus is their Saviour as a Christian. If you require more then that's up to you, but that's my definition of a Christian.

So to you anyone claiming christianity is indeed christian? Despite their actions or beliefs?

If I believed in God, and yet called myself an atheist would I be an actual atheist? Would all I say be from an atheistic POV?

I disagree. For one, I came to you with actual Christian dialog, and actual Christian context to make my point.

My point was that you did not. Because the actions of the "christian" do not align them self with Christ. Because of this discrepancy one can easily discern that his actions were not "christian" by their nature. Whether this man was a christian or not is another matter. Clearly the actions being recorded in your story are not Christ like in nature. Therefore not Christian.

I did not create a Christian straw man so that I could put words in his mouth, I let this Christian, and those that spread his word do the talking, and that's where my problem lies. I did not create the Christian I wished to defeat, I pointed out the Christian I currently have a problem with.

The problem your are not willing to acknowledge is that not everything one does as a "Christian" is indeed apart of Christianity.

Secondly, I did not simply pass this around to other atheists as a joke, talking behind your back, while preaching love and forgiveness. I came to a Christian forum, and specifically directed my problems to Christians themselves, so that they knew where I stood. I did not gossip behind your back, I brought this to the attention of Christians so that those who engaged in such gossip, or did not knew how people such as I viewed such nonsense. Those who did not could challenge the view.

New flash, Christianity is a religion fill with hypocrites. Why? Because no one can live to the standard God sets. But fortunately for us we do not have to live to that standard. God allows and welcomes those hypocrites/sinners who love in live under His name.

No, what bothers me is the manner in which I hear about such complaints. If you want to accuse me of something, be brave enough to do it to my face. Don't cower behind emailed straw man characters, and "Christian Only" forums. I shouldn't hear about such "jokes" from a site that I thought was for computer troubleshooting.

What am I supposed to be accusing you of? I spoke my mine clearly and directly to the point.

What I'm saying is that I am not willing to disqualify someone as being a Christian just because you, or I don't like him.

You are missing the line that I have outlined several times now. I am not judging whether or not someone is a Christian. I am simply judging the fruit of their efforts, and comparing it to the standards that govern Christianity. If their action do not align with the standard found in the bible then one can discern their actions are not Christian. This does not mean these people are not forgiven, they are simply involved in a non-christian action.

Not everything we say and do is doctrine.

If he takes Christ as his Saviour, then that alone qualifies him as a Christian in my eyes. His individual theology beyond that doesn't matter to me. Yes, there are Christians I like, and Christians I don't like. That doesn't make either one, more or less a Christian.

You are overlooking the point I am bringing to this discussion to argue a point you have prepared yourself for.
Please take another look at what I am trying to say.

 

[sterken7983]

If this is true, then it conforms to my theory about True Christians: There are none.



I think you will find, that it is also the necessary definition of a "True Christian." One cannot define a True Christian without declaring themselves, and those who agree with them to be one. Afterall, if you do not believe yourself (and those like you) to be a True Christian, then why are you not one?



So a True Christian does not believe Christ, but believes the Bible?



So, you're saying that you are a True Christian, and all of those other guys aren't?



Honestly? No. No offense, but what have you said here that is substantially different from all of the "fake Christians?" Simply put, you've said that you're right, for reason x, and they're wrong. You want to convince me that Christianity isn't a body fighting among themselves, split into a "million shards," but you're also trying to convince me that most "Christians" are wrong in their faith.

That just strikes me as contradictory.

Hold on, you're making presumptions about a religion you are not a part of. While you know a lot about it, there's also some things you have to understand.

First, you have to realize WHAT the Word of God is (the Bible). It is exactly that. THE WORD OF GOD. Who is the Word of God? Jesus Christ. In Genesis, it says the Word was with God. There is God the Father, the head honcho. His Son is Jesus Christ, also known as the Living Word of God, meaning literally, he is the VOICE of God the Father. A Father and Son team. This is why we call the Bible the Word of God, meaning Jesus is the Living Word, so the Bible IS the Word of Jesus, given to men (the authors) through the Holy Spirit. You don't have to believe that yourself, but it's a juxtaposition to say you're to believe the Bible and not Christ because we believe Christ IS the Bible. That's why we call it, the Word of God.

And as far as the True Christian thing, no, I did NOT say I thought that ONLY I am a True Christian and no one else here is. That is you putting words into my mouth.

What I'm saying is True Christians are people who believe the ENTIRE Bible IS the Living Word of God (Jesus, The Truth, Straight From God.) That is who I recognize as a True Christian and unless someone here objects, to the best of my knowledge, I consider the other Christians here posting in this thread to be True Christians as well because they seem to also believe that the Bible is the Living Word of God.

That is why we can argue amongst ourselves because we still agree that the Bible is Holy. The arguments I was talking about shattering the Church are the groups of Christians who add books to the Bible or remove some books. There are certain denoms and different groups, for example, that don't believe in Revelations. THIS is the arguing I am talking about, not the arguing on this thread. Guess I should have clarified this better.

Because there are so many different versions of Christianity, some saying you only need the New Testament, some saying you don't need the bible AT ALL, some saying you need certain books, etc. etc. So no, I do not think of myself only as a True Christian and from most of the people's posts I have seen (granted, only God knows who is a True Christian and who is not) from my best, HUMAN judgment, seems like you have a pretty strong, Bible believing group of Christians answering your thread.

 

[JGG]

Hold on, you're making presumptions about a religion you are not a part of. While you know a lot about it, there's also some things you have to understand.

Well yes, but if you're telling me to claim that one person is Christian, and one is not based on your individual interpretations of God's word, that would require me to also make presumptions about a religion I'm not a part of, namely which if you is right.

First, you have to realize WHAT the Word of God is (the Bible). It is exactly that. THE WORD OF GOD. Who is the Word of God? Jesus Christ. In Genesis, it says the Word was with God. There is God the Father, the head honcho. His Son is Jesus Christ, also known as the Living Word of God, meaning literally, he is the VOICE of God the Father. A Father and Son team. This is why we call the Bible the Word of God, meaning Jesus is the Living Word, so the Bible IS the Word of Jesus, given to men (the authors) through the Holy Spirit. You don't have to believe that yourself, but it's a juxtaposition to say you're to believe the Bible and not Christ because we believe Christ IS the Bible. That's why we call it, the Word of God.

And as far as the True Christian thing, no, I did NOT say I thought that ONLY I am a True Christian and no one else here is. That is you putting words into my mouth.

I don't think that's quite what I said either. I assume that you take yourself to be a True Christian. I take it that you also assume that those who agree with your particiular theology are also True Christians. I further have to assume that those who disagree with your theology are not True Christians. That's how it has to work, right?

I tell you what, bringing it back to the OP, the person who wrote this story, can you tell me that s/he is not a True Christian?

What I'm saying is True Christians are people who believe the ENTIRE Bible IS the Living Word of God (Jesus, The Truth, Straight From God.) That is who I recognize as a True Christian and unless someone here objects, to the best of my knowledge, I consider the other Christians here posting in this thread to be True Christians as well because they seem to also believe that the Bible is the Living Word of God.

That is why we can argue amongst ourselves because we still agree that the Bible is Holy. The arguments I was talking about shattering the Church are the groups of Christians who add books to the Bible or remove some books. There are certain denoms and different groups, for example, that don't believe in Revelations. THIS is the arguing I am talking about, not the arguing on this thread. Guess I should have clarified this better.

Oh, I see. So, for example, people who don't believe that the events of Revelation are going to occur, are not True Christians.

Because there are so many different versions of Christianity, some saying you only need the New Testament, some saying you don't need the bible AT ALL, some saying you need certain books, etc. etc. So no, I do not think of myself only as a True Christian and from most of the people's posts I have seen (granted, only God knows who is a True Christian and who is not) from my best, HUMAN judgment, seems like you have a pretty strong, Bible believing group of Christians answering your thread.

Hi. The bolded part is essentially my point.

 

[JGG]

So to you anyone claiming christianity is indeed christian? Despite their actions or beliefs?

Not despite their beliefs. If someone believes that Christ is their saviour, then yes, I accept that they are Christian. If someone said that they don't believe that Christ is their saviour, then I would say they are not a Christian.

If I believed in God, and yet called myself an atheist would I be an actual atheist? Would all I say be from an atheistic POV?

No, atheist is fairly clearly defined: One who does not believe in God, gods, or deities.

However, actions, and non-sequitor beliefs are not taken into account. I would not claim that atheists are those who do not believe in God, never jay-walk, believe in an open free-market, and like dogs over cats. If you catch an atheist jay-walking, hear one claim that the market requires more government oversight, or has a cat, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are not an atheist, or not a True Atheist.

My point was that you did not. Because the actions of the "christian" do not align them self with Christ. Because of this discrepancy one can easily discern that his actions were not "christian" by their nature. Whether this man was a christian or not is another matter. Clearly the actions being recorded in your story are not Christ like in nature. Therefore not Christian.

I understand your point, but I disagree. I agree that it's not part of the actual faith, but such actions seem to stand out as particularly prevelant among those who practice Christianity. I will agree it is not Christ-like as I understand it. This does not mean that I suddenly find such writings, or such attitudes which somehow seem to extend outward from a great number of Christian churches to be acceptable. It may not be a part of the faith, but increasingly it seems part of the religion.

Afterall, Jews don't seem to have the same problems with atheists as Christians have. Nor Hindus, or Buddhists, or Taoists, or even Scientologists. It really just seems to be Christians and Muslims, that see atheists as enemies.

We can recognize that it is an attitude which is active in the Christian Community, and still agree that it's not Christ-like.

And again, it's not actions recorded in the story that I'm primarily concerend with, it's the contextual attitude that the story was written in. It's the attutide of those passing it around from Christian to Christian to uphold their, and others' attitudes toward people like me.

The problem your are not willing to acknowledge is that not everything one does as a "Christian" is indeed apart of Christianity.

Again, I agree it is not part of the Christian faith, but it is a part of modern Christian culture, the Christian community, and "Christianity," the broad group of people who practice the Christian religion.

New flash, Christianity is a religion fill with hypocrites. Why? Because no one can live to the standard God sets. But fortunately for us we do not have to live to that standard. God allows and welcomes those hypocrites/sinners who love in live under His name.

No offense, that's not my concern. My concern is essentially the prevailing attitude among Christians that I am their enemy, simply because I do not believe in their God. I'm sure there are people who received the story in the OP, and rolled their eyes in dissapointment. But for every one of them, I'd wager more laughed at the story of the stupid evil atheist, and forwarded it to all of their friends, so that they could also enjoy the joke.

What am I supposed to be accusing you of? I spoke my mine clearly and directly to the point.

It was a rhetorical "you" aimed at the writer.

You are missing the line that I have outlined several times now. I am not judging whether or not someone is a Christian. I am simply judging the fruit of their efforts, and comparing it to the standards that govern Christianity. If their action do not align with the standard found in the bible then one can discern their actions are not Christian. This does not mean these people are not forgiven, they are simply involved in a non-christian action.

Fair enough, I agree with that. That does not change the fact that the action took place among Christians, and is a very active component in the Christian community. It does not change the prevailing attitude among most Christians that I am the enemy that must be slain. It does not make me any less hated. Just because it shouldn't be there, doesn't mean that it's not.

Not everything we say and do is doctrine.

Fair enough. But everything you say and do are things you say and do, and in does impact, however slightly, how all Christians look. That's unfair, but unfortunately, it's true. The more these attitudes leak out, unchallenged by Christians who disagree with them, the worse Christians as a whole are going to look.

You are overlooking the point I am bringing to this discussion to argue a point you have prepared yourself for.
Please take another look at what I am trying to say.

I understand what you're trying to say. It's simply not what I'm talking about.

 

[drich0150]

Not despite their beliefs. If someone believes that Christ is their Saviour, then yes, I accept that they are Christian. If someone said that they don't believe that Christ is their Saviour, then I would say they are not a Christian.
No, atheist is fairly clearly defined: One who does not believe in God, gods, or deities.
However, actions, and non-sequitor beliefs are not taken into account. I would not claim that atheists are those who do not believe in God, never jay-walk, believe in an open free-market, and like dogs over cats. If you catch an atheist jay-walking, hear one claim that the market requires more government oversight, or has a cat, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are not an atheist, or not a True Atheist.
I understand your point, but I disagree.

If you simply wish to accept your own definition over that of the scriptural definition then there is nothing more that I can say. Because if you will not recognize your personal labeling of "Christians" goes beyond what actually the bible defines as a Christian then you are not looking for clarity. Your looking for a way to persecute a personal grouping of people. Despite the truth of the matter.

I agree that it's not part of the actual faith, but such actions seem to stand out as particularly prevalent among those who practice Christianity.

If this is the case wouldn't make sense that more people would defend this position than not? Where is the general prevalency you speak of here? I will agree that some denominations will lean toward making people like you into enemies, but again this is not what the bible teaches. Therefore it makes these acts non-christian by nature. (Despite their actual spiritual status)

I will agree it is not Christ-like as I understand it. This does not mean that I suddenly find such writings, or such attitudes which somehow seem to extend outward from a great number of Christian churches to be acceptable. It may not be a part of the faith, but increasingly it seems part of the religion.

I will agree, but know there is a movement in the faith to separate faith from Religion. Not all believe in the tenements of popular Christianity.
Pop christians do not behave or act as Christians do. Not that one person can't be both, nor am I saying a Christian is perfect. The only difference between the two is one's faith is focused on religion and the other is focused primarily on Christ. These two will over lap in their efforts, but are not mutually exclusive.

After all, Jews don't seem to have the same problems with atheists as Christians have. Nor Hindus, or Buddhists, or Taoists, or even Scientologists. It really just seems to be Christians and Muslims, that see atheists as enemies.

Because all three systems of belief have one shared common doctrine. The need to seek and save the lost. Take the time and read what some of the other atheists post here and the stated reasoning behind it. The need to be right and to share/force others to your system of belief in these three faiths is the source of all contention. The others you mention do not reward the missionaries of the faith as these three do.

And again, it's not actions recorded in the story that I'm primarily concerned with, it's the contextual attitude that the story was written in. It's the attitude of those passing it around from Christian to Christian to uphold their, and others' attitudes toward people like me.

If in the story Christianity is not being represented then this story is not what you claim it to be, nor can it be used as you are claiming it to be used.

Again, I agree it is not part of the Christian faith, but it is a part of modern Christian culture, the Christian community, and "Christianity," the broad group of people who practice the Christian religion.

If here you are willing to separate Popular Christianity from Doctrinal Christianity then why condemn the whole of Christianity like you have done? Why not simply hold the popular christians that have openly participated in the spreading of this story, to the standards found in doctrinal Christianity?

No offense, that's not my concern. My concern is essentially the prevailing attitude among Christians that I am their enemy, simply because I do not believe in their God. I'm sure there are people who received the story in the OP, and rolled their eyes in disappointment. But for every one of them, I'd wager more laughed at the story of the stupid evil atheist, and forwarded it to all of their friends, so that they could also enjoy the joke.

Honestly I laughed, not at the professor but at the story as a whole. It was like the person who wrote this didnot truly understand either position.

Fair enough, I agree with that. That does not change the fact that the action took place among Christians, and is a very active component in the Christian community. It does not change the prevailing attitude among most Christians that I am the enemy that must be slain. It does not make me any less hated. Just because it shouldn't be there, doesn't mean that it's not.

So what do you propose to remedy this issue?

My proposal:
The only way effective change will take place is if someone were to show these 'Christians" that their actions are not doctrinally supported. Those who have faith in Christ will change. those who have faith in their religious efforts, will not. At which point I personally believe that your concern that "christians" are acting in a non Christian way will have been resolved.

For those who follow Christ will have changed.

Fair enough. But everything you say and do are things you say and do, and in does impact, however slightly, how all Christians look. That's unfair, but unfortunately, it's true. The more these attitudes leak out, unchallenged by Christians who disagree with them, the worse Christians as a whole are going to look.

It's a good thing you decided to talk about popular Christianity rather than Fried Chicken, Taking your shoes of before you enter indoors, or Land scaping...
Because if you applied this line of thought to any other social or racial stereotypes, we could very quickly and accurately label you as a bigot. But because society has lifted that ban and Christianity in general is fair game you are safe.

I do not see the same call to arms or concern here? Why is that? Why is it ok to attack what you perceive to be a Christian acting unfairly, but ignore, ney use a secular advantage to attack christianity in a similarly unfair way?

What were you a professor of again?

I understand what you're trying to say. It's simply not what I'm talking about

It should be.

 

[JGG]

If you simply wish to accept your own definition over that of the scriptural definition then there is nothing more that I can say. Because if you will not recognize your personal labeling of "Christians" goes beyond what actually the bible defines as a Christian then you are not looking for clarity. Your looking for a way to persecute a personal grouping of people. Despite the truth of the matter.

But understand it from my point of view. You want to tell me that "those guys" are not True Christians for reasons x1, y1, z1. If I ask "those guys," I'm sure they're more than willing to tell me that you are not a True Christian for reasons x2, y2, z2. Why should I believe you over them?

We all accept that Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim, right?

If this is the case wouldn't make sense that more people would defend this position than not? Where is the general prevalency you speak of here? I will agree that some denominations will lean toward making people like you into enemies, but again this is not what the bible teaches. Therefore it makes these acts non-christian by nature. (Despite their actual spiritual status)

People do defend this position. You defended the position earlier. You justified the stereotype earlier in this thread, explaining that many atheist professors are abusive. I've spent a lot of time on here trying to convince Christians that their various stereotypes about atheists are unfounded. We're not communists, we're not trying to destroy, and we don't need to be the enemy of Christianity. But people don't want to hear that.

I will agree, but know there is a movement in the faith to separate faith from Religion. Not all believe in the tenements of popular Christianity.
Pop christians do not behave or act as Christians do. Not that one person can't be both, nor am I saying a Christian is perfect. The only difference between the two is one's faith is focused on religion and the other is focused primarily on Christ. These two will over lap in their efforts, but are not mutually exclusive.

Well in all honesty, this doesn't mean much to me. I'm sure it means something to you, but it just doesn't to me. The only difference I see between the two, is that one guy gets up and says the other isn't a True Christian. I'm not a believer, so either guy's reasoning is just as valid as the other. What I'm saying is that if we ask that "other guy" if he's a True Christian, he will say he is, and that you're not. So why should I believe you, and not him (or either of you for that matter)?

Because all three systems of belief have one shared common doctrine. The need to seek and save the lost. Take the time and read what some of the other atheists post here and the stated reasoning behind it. The need to be right and to share/force others to your system of belief in these three faiths is the source of all contention. The others you mention do not reward the missionaries of the faith as these three do.

All three including atheism? I disagree. For one Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology are all rewarded as well. And the only doctrine of atheism is that we don't believe in gods full stop. Most atheists don't want to convert you, we just want to be left alone. We don't want to be preached to, we don't want to be "saved," and we don't want to be forced to follow your doctrine. There's no particular, direct benefit to you or me in converting you to atheism.

If in the story Christianity is not being represented then this story is not what you claim it to be, nor can it be used as you are claiming it to be used.

No. Again, the story itself does not even need to include a Christian for it to have the context I'm talking about. It's not the representation of Christianity that creates the context, it's the representation of atheists. The only reason that Christian is important to that effect is that it tells us who wrote it.

If here you are willing to separate Popular Christianity from Doctrinal Christianity then why condemn the whole of Christianity like you have done?

Because the way you use Popular Christianity and Doctrinal Christianity you might as well say "True Christian" and fake christian. You all claim to have the true doctrine, and the other guys have got it wrong. I don't get to sit on the outside and say that "these guys" are the Doctrinal "True" Christians, and these guys are the fake pop christians. Again, you all claim to be the practitioners of Doctrinal Christianity, and the "other guys" are pop christianity.

Why not simply hold the popular christians that have openly participated in the spreading of this story, to the standards found in doctrinal Christianity?

And then what standard would I hold the "Doctrinal Christians" to?

So what do you propose to remedy this issue?

My proposal:
The only way effective change will take place is if someone were to show these 'Christians" that their actions are not doctrinally supported. Those who have faith in Christ will change. those who have faith in their religious efforts, will not. At which point I personally believe that your concern that "christians" are acting in a non Christian way will have been resolved.

For those who follow Christ will have changed.

How do you propose to demonstrate to such people that their actions are not doctrinally supported?

It's a good thing you decided to talk about popular Christianity rather than Fried Chicken, Taking your shoes of before you enter indoors, or Land scaping...
Because if you applied this line of thought to any other social or racial stereotypes, we could very quickly and accurately label you as a bigot. But because society has lifted that ban and Christianity in general is fair game you are safe.

It's a true thing. It's unfair, but that's what happens. Now, I don't think Fried Chicken is a bad thing, and a I think it's a stupid stereotype (don't most people love fried chicken?), but African American civil rights leaders frequently challenge the African American youth to better represent their community. Italian Americans implored the cast of the Jersey Shore and previously, the Sopranos to better present the Italian American community. They do this because they understand how prejudice works.

While hundreds of mosques have been built in the United States over the past several decades without incident, but because of some Muslim terrorists, the construction of new mosques across the country have been met with protests.

That's how a few "fake Muslims" make all Muslims look bad. That's how prejudice works.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend I'm above it. Nobody knows better than I do that it's impossible for anyone to stand above prejudice. Everyone hates.

I do not see the same call to arms or concern here? Why is that? Why is it ok to attack what you perceive to be a Christian acting unfairly, but ignore, ney use a secular advantage to attack christianity in a similarly unfair way?

What do you think I've said that's unfair (or an attack for that matter)?

It should be.

Why do you think so? How do you see it as relevant? Whether they are True Christians or not is irrelevant even if I were to accept such distinctions. That they are not "Christ-like" is not something I'm disputing. But what I see is still a disturbingly large number of people calling me their enemy with an open Bible in front of them.

 

[drich0150]

But understand it from my point of view. You want to tell me that "those guys" are not True Christians for reasons x1, y1, z1. If I ask "those guys," I'm sure they're more than willing to tell me that you are not a True Christian for reasons x2, y2, z2. Why should I believe you over them?

You don't. If you want to be able to make a real discernment between popular Christianity and biblical Christianity then do your own research.

We all accept that Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim, right?

Because His actions are consistent with a pure/older translation of the Qu'ran.

People do defend this position. You defended the position earlier. You justified the stereotype earlier in this thread, explaining that many atheist professors are abusive.

Because collage professors have been rightly given the abusive stereotype, and because I pointed out this fact to you, You believe that I spent my time defending a story that serves no spiritual purpose? Is it always you are either for me or against me with you?

You represent one extreme, and the story another. The truth lies somewhere between the two. It is my sincerest hope that you received more from my efforts than what you have posted to this point.

I've spent a lot of time on here trying to convince Christians that their various stereotypes about atheists are unfounded. We're not communists, we're not trying to destroy, and we don't need to be the enemy of Christianity. But people don't want to hear that.

Again, take a look at some of the posts that your 'brothers' have started and maintained. You my friend are in the minority of the minority. Others who bear your icon of belief do not seem to share your sentiments.

Well in all honesty, this doesn't mean much to me. I'm sure it means something to you, but it just doesn't to me. The only difference I see between the two, is that one guy gets up and says the other isn't a True Christian. I'm not a believer, so either guy's reasoning is just as valid as the other. What I'm saying is that if we ask that "other guy" if he's a True Christian, he will say he is, and that you're not. So why should I believe you, and not him (or either of you for that matter)?

If you are simply looking for an opportunity to persecute. or if you are looking for an instance of hypocrisy to hang the whole of Christianity on, and not use the most basic discernment that you would extend to any other race or life style when a broad generalization was used. then "belief" in the truth is a moot endeavor. After all do you believe that all black men are criminals? Do you presuppose that all Oriental people can not drive? that all Mexicans, are landscapers? That all Gay men are pedophiles?
Why are you able to drag out a teaspoon worth of discernment here, and are not willing to do so with Christianity?

All three including atheism? I disagree. For one Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology are all rewarded as well.

I did not say there was no reward, just that the reward of the three in conflict seems to be tied to salvation to some degree.

And the only doctrine of atheism is that we don't believe in gods full stop. Most atheists don't want to convert you, we just want to be left alone.

These comments are not consistent with atheists actions found here. These comments are not consistent with your actions.

We don't want to be preached to, we don't want to be "saved," and we don't want to be forced to follow your doctrine. There's no particular, direct benefit to you or me in converting you to atheism.

Never the less there does seem to be a smug satisfaction when an atheist makes a believer doubt his faith. This seems to be reward enough for those who come here. This also seems to be the fuel that keep your brothers coming back. Which makes it apart of your belief.

No. Again, the story itself does not even need to include a Christian for it to have the context I'm talking about. It's not the representation of Christianity that creates the context, it's the representation of atheists. The only reason that Christian is important to that effect is that it tells us who wrote it.

And I say again, and again. This is not the work of Christianity.

Because the way you use Popular Christianity and Doctrinal Christianity you might as well say "True Christian" and fake christian. You all claim to have the true doctrine, and the other guys have got it wrong. I don't get to sit on the outside and say that "these guys" are the Doctrinal "True" Christians, and these guys are the fake pop christians. Again, you all claim to be the practitioners of Doctrinal Christianity, and the "other guys" are pop christianity.

If you cared at all about the blind you are creating then you would do a little research. For you it may seem like you have a legitimate argument here, and this may have been true if there were no standards for me to make the distinction that I did, but the opposite is true. For instance. the other guy you are talking with took a strong defensive posture on your story as if he was the author, and had different reasons to try and defend the way the professor was handled. He hung all of this on an old testament/Jewish proverb, when in fact the works and word of Christ were contrary to his claims. When I posted these words his argument stopped. As a doctrinal Christian there was little else he could say.

And then what standard would I hold the "Doctrinal Christians" to?

The same as you do popular Christians. The bible.

How do you propose to demonstrate to such people that their actions are not doctrinally supported?

Book Chapter and Verse. I've demonstrated this in this thread a couple of different times already.

It's a true thing. It's unfair, but that's what happens. Now, I don't think Fried Chicken is a bad thing, and a I think it's a stupid stereotype (don't most people love fried chicken?), but African American civil rights leaders frequently challenge the African American youth to better represent their community. Italian Americans implored the cast of the Jersey Shore and previously, the Sopranos to better present the Italian American community. They do this because they understand how prejudice works.

While hundreds of mosques have been built in the United States over the past several decades without incident, but because of some Muslim terrorists, the construction of new mosques across the country have been met with protests.

That's how a few "fake Muslims" make all Muslims look bad. That's how prejudice works.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend I'm above it. Nobody knows better than I do that it's impossible for anyone to stand above prejudice. Everyone hates.

Then why hold christians to a different standard?

What do you think I've said that's unfair (or an attack for that matter)?

The whole of your argument is based on a double standard, or rather you are pointing out a stereotypical 'christian' prejudice, when you have to employ an equally prejudice tactic to do so yourself.

This action show that you have little concern about the manner in which the professor in the story was tried and found guilty, your primary focus is on exploiting an opportunity to persecute those you have similarly have tried and found guilty. This point is further demonstrated by the fact that you have little to no interest in segregating the "wheat from the weeds or the sheep from the goats." (The good/from the bad) It's not that you can not do this, or that you have not done this in other instances (as you previous paragraph has indicated.) You choose not to. You are so focused on your target that you have ignored all other elements of civility, thus sacrificing your intergity... Which puts you in the very same realm of professor that this story is all about.

Why do you think so?

Because it would show genuine concern as to resolving the nature of this conflict.

How do you see it as relevant?

From your perspective I do not. Because it would take you off your intended path. However as I just said if you intent was to help resolve this issue, then it would truly be a wake up call to have an atheist professor tell a pop christian (with the proper book chapter and verse) that their actions do not align with the teachings and actions of Christ.

Whether they are True Christians or not is irrelevant even if I were to accept such distinctions. That they are not "Christ-like" is not something I'm disputing. But what I see is still a disturbingly large number of people calling me their enemy with an open Bible in front of them.

The discernment they use to classify you as an enemy is not an anti Christian act. Treating you as one is. There is no sin in approaching you with their guard up. Your actions here tell me this is a well justified approach.

 

[DomainRider]

...
We all accept that Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim, right?

Well that's the crux of the problem - from my POV he's a Muslim in some senses, but not in others. Similarly for the Christians you complain of. The question is, which senses, and how crucial are they to valid 'membership' of the religion, and who judges?

AFAICS, the only practical distinction for the layperson seems to be between 'mainstream' and 'extreme', and that is fairly subjective for all concerned. We can't really expect a more objective view from the religious groups themselves.

 

[drich0150]

Well that's the crux of the problem - from my POV he's a Muslim in some senses, but not in others. Similarly for the Christians you complain of. The question is, which senses, and how crucial are they to valid 'membership' of the religion, and who judges?

AFAICS, the only practical distinction for the layperson seems to be between 'mainstream' and 'extreme', and that is fairly subjective for all concerned. We can't really expect a more objective view from the religious groups themselves.

Are you talking to me or him?

 

[oi_antz]

In other words, are Christian actions a necessary determinant of a person's Christianity? Or are they important but not determinant (can a person be Christian despite taking no Christian actions or taking mostly un-Christian actions)?

Or perhaps this kind of analysis is meaningless in the Christian worldview - one judges who one wishes to associate with by their actions, but cannot judge their Christianity?

Just catching up on this thread, forgive me if it's already been said. I think the passage "by their fruits you shall know them" says pretty plainly that all Christians are expected to demonstrate the likeness of Christ, and when they fail to, it is sin. Thus, as soon as they are aware of the fact that they aren't demonstrating the likeness of Christ, they should repent. It is not easy for a Christian to repent, especially when facing temptation from the devil, but even if you aren't Christian, you can have a pivotal role in training Jesus' disciples by gently instructing them, helping them to think about how they could be more like Jesus. Doesn't make sense to me why you would not want to be Christian if you wanted to work for Jesus, but hey, maybe you just like to be a supportive person without facing the devil

 

[razeontherock]

I assume that you take yourself to be a True Christian. I take it that you also assume that those who agree with your particiular theology are also True Christians. I further have to assume that those who disagree with your theology are not True Christians. That's how it has to work, right?

Nope.