Chritians

[elman]

Christian is not defined as being loving, either. That´s your personal definition, and what would prevent me from applying my personal definition of atheism just like you apply yours of Christianity?

Christianity is following the teachings of Christ who taught love. Very logical progression. Now do that with atheism where it makes any sense.

 

[MethodMan]

You were indeed asking for a proposal as to which moral standards our considerations should be based upon. I was giving you that which I found the fairest option (applying a person´s own standards), and you passed.
So why did you ask, in the first place?

I grow leary of applying "christian" standard of another's creation. Still do. I carry the Methodist Icon and I am what many Methodists would consider a poor Methodist yet they would not dare speak for God.

I was thinking along the lines of

You define what is moral and what isn't. That is a statement, not a question. By Christian morals, some are moral and some aren't.

 

[elman]

Reputation: 69
Health: 84%
Blessings: 66
Posts: 83


Quote
Originally Posted by: elman







Quote




Evidently. True in the finest analytic a priori fashion... if we define Christian as "one who does the Christian thing", and we define "the Christian thing" as loving, it is by definition true that all Christians are loving. (Let's jump, for the sake of sheer philosophical pleasure, from "loving" to "moral", which is not an easy thing, but let's concede).

Nevertheless, it is humanly impossible to love all the time, and it is also a given that Christians fail (like the rest of us), so this would give us...

Christains are loving when they are "doing the Christian thing" ... and this is equivalent to...

Christians are loving when they are loving, which is a tautology, and, by definition, tautologies don't add to knowledge, so, in strict logic, we have said nothing here that enriches our knowledge.

Sokr.







Which is why a big part of Christian theology is grace. However it is a mistake to say we are all the same because we are all unloving. Hitler was unloving and Mother Theresa was unloving in that she was not perfect in being loving. Therefore there is no difference between them. Wrong conclusion.





What wrong conclusion? Yours or mine? Where in my post does it say that I equate all human beings?

I say -and quite literally BTW- that "it is also a given that Christians fail (like the rest of us)", meaning that both Christians and non-Christians fail. And that is a reasonable belief, even if I say so myself. I don't believe any of us, under any belief system, are morally perfect.

You did not respond to what I wrote. Perhaps you misread what I wrote.

 

[quatona]

Christianity is following the teachings of Christ who taught love.

This is not universally agreed upon.

Very logical progression. Now do that with atheism where it makes any sense.

I agree that it wouldn´t make any more sense than your assertion. Both come down to one´s personal interpretation.

 

[Sokratikos]

One small problem. Atheistic is not defined as being loving and cannot be defined that way. Therefore it does not work because you have misused the word Athietic. Being loving is not being atheistic. Again not correct use of words.

Quite true. Atheism is not defined, anywhere that I have seen, in terms of love. Atheists love as humans do, suffer, as humans do, desire, like humans do...

... and most anythinge else. And Christians too, by the way. Unless, of course Christians are not human, and I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

 

[elman]

This is not universally agreed upon.


I agree that it wouldn´t make any more sense than your assertion. Both come down to one´s personal interpretation.

I don't agree that you are being anywhere close to what is univerally agree upon as I am. Something does not have to be universaly agreed upon to be generally true and logical. What is not univerally agreed upon is Athiest are loving and teach being loving and that is how you know an atheist when you see him. It does not come down to personal opinion. You are simply incorrect in your analysis.

 

[quatona]

But I could be mistaken. It happens all the time in this silly head of mine.

Then it might be a better idea to ask instead of making personal remarks you yourself are not sure are correct.

 

[Sokratikos]

You did not respond to what I wrote. Perhaps you misread what I wrote.

If so, please explain.

 

[elman]

Quite true. Atheism is not defined, anywhere that I have seen, in terms of love. Atheists love as humans do, suffer, as humans do, desire, like humans do...

... and most anythinge else. And Christians too, by the way. Unless, of course Christians are not human, and I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

Defining what humans do or what atheist do does not give you a definition of what the word Christian indicates about a human being. Human and atheist do not mean the same thing either by the way. All humans are not atheist but all atheist are human. Words have meaning and atheist defins a human with a particular world view. Christian defines a human with a particular habit of response to human needs.

 

[quatona]

I don't agree that you are being anywhere close to what is univerally agree upon as I am.

That´s your perfect right, and I would defend it.

Something does not have to be universaly agreed upon to be generally true and logical.

Indeed.

What is not univerally agreed upon is Athiest are loving and teach being loving

Same goes for christians.

and that is how you know an atheist when you see him.

I´m not sure I understand what you are saying here. Right now I have a hard time interpreting it as anything else than a general insult. Please explain.

It does not come down to personal opinion. You are simply incorrect in your analysis.

Ah, I see. Your personal opinion is not your personal opinion, but correct and objective.

 

[elman]

If so, please explain.

However it is a mistake to say we are all the same because we are all unloving. Hitler was unloving and Mother Theresa was unloving in that she was not perfect in being loving. Therefore there is no difference between them. Wrong conclusion.

What wrong conclusion? Yours or mine? Where in my post does it say that I equate all human beings?

I say -and quite literally BTW- that "it is also a given that Christians fail (like the rest of us)", meaning that both Christians and non-Christians fail. And that is a reasonable belief, even if I say so myself. I don't believe any of us, under any belief system, are morally perfect.

First you say you don't equate all human beings and then you say both Christians and non Christians fail to love. That appears to me to be equating them. All people have lied if they have reached adulthood, but the statment that he or she is a liar has meaning. It means they are not the same as all the other humans that have lied at some time in their lifetime. It means they have a lifestyle of lying or can be expected to lie where most people try to tell the truth most of the time and can be to some extent relied upon to be truthful.

 

[Sokratikos]

Defining what humans do or what atheist do does not give you a definition of what the word Christian indicates about a human being. Human and atheist do not mean the same thing either by the way. All humans are not atheist but all atheist are human. Words have meaning and atheist defins a human with a particular world view. Christian defines a human with a particular habit of response to human needs.

True.
Jesus teaches to love.
We all fall short of loving.
Meaning:
All of us humans love some of the time (at times we do, at times we don't).
Some of us humans are Christian.
Christians love some of the time.


That is what I contend on this thread.

 

[elman]

I´m not sure I understand what you are saying here. Right now I have a hard time interpreting it as anything else than a general insult. Please explain.

It should not be an insult to atheists that they are not know for being loving. That is not what they are about. Love is not what identifys them and they don't claim it is. Christians on the other do claim to be followers of a teacher that taught us to love.

Ah, I see. Your personal opinion is not your personal opinion, but correct and objective.

In this case I am correct and objectively so and your not being correct in your analysis of things. This not of course true of all my ideas, but I think it is this time on this one.

 

[elman]

True.
Jesus teaches to love.
We all fall short of loving.
Meaning:
All of us humans love some of the time (at times we do, at times we don't).
Some of us humans are Christian.
Christians love some of the time.


That is what I contend on this thread.

I don't disagree as far as you have said it, but just as there is a difference between mother teresa and hitler there should be difference between Christians and non Christians in how loving or unloving they are. There is a difference between a lifestyle that is characterized by being loving and one that is not and yet both are loving and unloving at times.

 

[quatona]

It should not be an insult to atheists that they are not know for being loving. That is not what they are about.

You said "That´s how you know an atheist when you see him", and not "That´s what you know about atheism".
Your statement, as far as I can see, implies that you can tell a person to be an atheist by his non-loving behaviour.

Love is not what identifys them

That´s what they have in common with christians. As you elaborate further down, it´s at best the claim of being loving that identifies christians.

and they don't claim it is.

Well, I just claimed it.
Point being: What anyone claims to be a follower of is by and large irrelevant unless it is displayed in his actions. And this again is highly dependent on the eye of the beholder.

Christians on the other do claim to be followers of a teacher that taught us to love.

Which does not allow the conclusion that they are know for being loving. It just allows the conclusion that they claim to be loving.

In this case I am correct and objectively so and your not being correct in your analysis of things. This not of course true of all my ideas, but I think it is this time on this one.

Keyword here being "I think".

 

[Sokratikos]

True.
Jesus teaches to love.
We all fall short of loving.
Meaning:
All of us humans love some of the time (at times we do, at times we don't).
Some of us humans are Christian.
Christians love some of the time.


That is what I contend on this thread.

I don't disagree as far as you have said it, but just as there is a difference between mother teresa and hitler there should be difference between Christians and non Christians in how loving or unloving they are. There is a difference between a lifestyle that is characterized by being loving and one that is not and yet both are loving and unloving at times.

Here I really start to disagree! It doesn't matter if your mom told you to behave or not, it only matters if you do behave.

Christians are not more loving because they have been commanded to. They are loving if they are more loving. The rest is prejudice.

Unless you produce some evidence of Christians behaving better than non-Christians, I think you should detract of this for the sake of honesty.

On my part, I will now give some countr-evidence of the fact that Christians are not always loving:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=148&letter=I#405

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchhunt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM

 

[Sokratikos]

Also: Are you saying you are as loving as Mother Teresa, and I (a non-Christian), a Hitler?

You are overgeneralizing. Not a sound argument at all. And you are very close to slander, if not there already.

Non-Christians can be bad, Christians can be bad, and I haven't seen any evidence that Christians are better than non-Christians on average.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Here I really start to disagree! It doesn't matter if your mom told you to behave or not, it only matters if you do behave.

Christians are not more loving because they have been commanded to. They are loving if they are more loving. The rest is prejudice.

Unless you produce some evidence of Christians behaving better than non-Christians, I think you should detract of this for the sake of honesty.

LOL.
Try Googling charity and Christian, then try Googling charity and any other group you wish.

BTW - you may wish to refrain from requesting posters to "detract" for the sake of honesty, when in fact the "honest" position would be not to consider something false (or true) by default.

On my part, I will now give some countr-evidence of the fact that Christians are not always loving:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=148&letter=I#405

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchhunt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM

I've followed your argument for a little bit and it is... weak.

Fabricating an issue to an unrelated state or standard i.e. "always".
Not only are other groups not generally claiming to hold such a platform, but Christians do not typically claim "perfection" either, thus your effigy of "always" in an attempted lowering of Christian behavior down so all considerations are indistinguishable is just that, a fallacy. That is also beyond the fact that people generally allow anyone and everyone's "Christian status" to be defined as anyone that wishes to claim to be Christian.

Similarly, the argument also purports "loving" almost to a standard of exclusive selection for personal reaction.
IOW - Not EVERYTHING demands or deserves respect, much less love. Christians are to be SINCERE in "the loving" and what qualifies AS love is also not defined by popular vote, but defined by God.
Example being that a parent appropriately correcting a child via spanking may seem like being abusive to the child, but is actually a display of love by educated standards.

Romans 12:9
[ Love ] Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.

 

[elman]

Here I really start to disagree! It doesn't matter if your mom told you to behave or not, it only matters if you do behave.

Christians are not more loving because they have been commanded to. They are loving if they are more loving. The rest is prejudice.

Unless you produce some evidence of Christians behaving better than non-Christians, I think you should detract of this for the sake of honesty.

On my part, I will now give some countr-evidence of the fact that Christians are not always loving:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=148&letter=I#405

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchhunt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM

When Christians are not loving they are not acting as Christians should act. I agree that all that matters is do we obey the command to love, not that we agree the command is a good thing. Why would you try to prove Christians are not perfect in their loving when I have already said they are not?

 

[elman]

LOL.
Try Googling charity and Christian, then try Googling charity and any other group you wish.

BTW - you may wish to refrain from requesting posters to "detract" for the sake of honesty, when in fact the "honest" position would be not to consider something false (or true) by default.


I've followed your argument for a little bit and it is... weak.

Fabricating an issue to an unrelated state or standard i.e. "always".
Not only are other groups not generally claiming to hold such a platform, but Christians do not typically claim "perfection" either, thus your effigy of "always" in an attempted lowering of Christian behavior down so all considerations are indistinguishable is just that, a fallacy. That is also beyond the fact that people generally allow anyone and everyone's "Christian status" to be defined as anyone that wishes to claim to be Christian.

Similarly, the argument also purports "loving" almost to a standard of exclusive selection for personal reaction.
IOW - Not EVERYTHING demands or deserves respect, much less love. Christians are to be SINCERE in "the loving" and what qualifies AS love is also not defined by popular vote, but defined by God.
Example being that a parent appropriately correcting a child via spanking may seem like being abusive to the child, but is actually a display of love by educated standards.

Romans 12:9
[ Love ] Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.

Good response. Better than mine actually.