The Foolishness of Many Non-believers

[SkepticalSkeeter]

You are still in ignorance, Thadeyus! The answer to what a Christian is can be found in the Bible but you don't care to look for it.

I can't really take you seriously. You are like a pastry chef who thinks cake is made with cornmeal.

FL

Perhaps, like me, he's perfectly satisfied with the dictionary definition and he finds it completely ridiculous that you're proposing your own counter definition, but then refusing to disclose what it is. Of course, I could be projecting.

Also your analogies don't make sense.

[jlay]

Generally speaking I believe that it's wrong, although there are some situations where it would be morally acceptable to do so. For example, I have no issue with assisted suicide, provided that there's appropriate oversight to ensure that the patient's wishes are actually being honored.

In situational ethics we are dealing with dilemma. The dilemma is based on the objective truth that it is wrong to murder. If that is not the case, then there is no dilemma. In the example you sight, there are conditions that cause us to evaluate what we KNOW is wrong, and then examine whether the situation warrants a different course of action. It doesn't change what is right or wrong. In fact, this is dealing with the greater good. It actually values the life that is suffering. The moral dilemma here is whether the person is BETTER off living in suffering, or being spared this suffering by ending their life. The fact remains that one is appealing to an objective standard in which human life does have intrinsic value. Which then brings us back to the question, how?

As for why, I think that morality pretty much comes down to the Golden Rule. The weak and helpless deserve the same level of respect and personal autonomy as anyone else, and human life has value.

This (Golden Rule) is often sited by Atheists with little to no explanation as to why it is true. Of course I would agree that the GR is true. But why is it BETTER than, 'only the strong survive?' Because you prefer it? Or, maybe because a group of people prefer it?
My response is, so what? Preference is subjective. And on that premise we are left arguing in circles, because you simply can't account for your worldview without smuggling in another worldview that you concurrently claim is false.

Q: Is it "right" or "wrong" for man to rape women? Emotions aside, why or why not?

Wrong.

Again, Golden Rule. Personal autonomy. Our bodies are our own.

According to what? The GR is not a thing. It is an idea. A good one, I agree. But what establishes his idea as being objectively true. Where does it come from? Otherwise, why are other ideas wrong or worse?

Golden Rule. Personal autonomy. All human life has value.

Value according to what? Claiming it, doesn't demonstrate it to be true.

[Proinsias]

You are still in ignorance, Thadeyus! The answer to what a Christian is can be found in the Bible but you don't care to look for it.

I can't really take you seriously. You are like a pastry chef who thinks cake is made with cornmeal.

FL

I tend towards the dictionary definition, or more simply use the label Christian for anyone identifying as such. The internal Christian idea always seemed a little hazy to me in that one who later denounces Christianity was never a true Christian in the first place meaning to me, that one's current Christian status is dependent upon one's future pov. I gather you went from a rather comitted athiest to Christian, from what I understand if in x amount of years you revert back to atheism and stick with it until death then your current Christianity would be false? Any clarification is welcome as I know you biblical knowledge far outstrips mine.

[jlay]

I tend towards the dictionary definition, or more simply use the label Christian for anyone identifying as such. The internal Christian idea always seemed a little hazy to me in that one who later denounces Christianity was never a true Christian in the first place meaning to me, that one's current Christian status is dependent upon one's future pov. I gather you went from a rather comitted athiest to Christian, from what I understand if in x amount of years you revert back to atheism and stick with it until death then your current Christianity would be false? Any clarification is welcome as I know you biblical knowledge far outstrips mine.

Pro,
I use to hold that definition, but later rejected it, because, in my estimation, it is wrong. You are going to get several opinions on this one. But the main point you are addressing is whether someone who once proclaimed faith and then later renounces this faith can still be considered Christian. I started a new thread to keep from getting off topic.

Arguing whether Hitler was or wasn't Christian is futile. If he ever truly trusted Christ, then he certainly did not live according to his faith. I've researched the subject, and there is nothing I've ever read to give me any indication that Hitler ever trusted Christ for his salvation. Sure, he went through some religious ceremonies, but not even the RCC would conclude that this is what saves, or makes a person Christian. What we can be certain of the atrocities he committed and that those actions were contrary to anything taught in the New Testament.

[Kurieuo]

Hmm.

Only Christ knows who belong to Him, and those who belong to Christ know they belong to Him. This isn't a sleight of hand, as if it matters who we really thought was Christian or not. Rather, it is explicitly taught by Christ as recorded in Scripture. (John 10:14-15)

With Scripture being foundational, this definition therefore usurps any human developed understanding over time, especially a secular definition with would love to cast the net of "Christian" quite broadly for their own motivations. I mean I would have never thought anyone would seriously believe someone could be both Atheist and Christian, eh Thad?

A "true Christian" is a person only God knows, but we can also know it of ourselves.

That said, "Christian" simply means "follower of Christ's teachings" and if we accept this definition proposed by SS (which I have nothing against), then Hitler can clearly be ruled out despite whatever manipulative tricks one tries to play with their words to categorise Hilter as a Christian. Christ taught:

• 15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.
  
  21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

According to Christ's words here, some Atheists would tend to believe the person cast into the fire who appears to perform works for Christ is in fact "Christian". Let's call him Hitler. So Thad, you first called Hitler a "bad Christian". Let me say now, Christians are just sinful people who place their hope in Christ for forgiveness. In this respect, we are all to some degree "bad".

So I questioned your associating him as a Christian at all. He is not deserving of the label, since he clearly did not follow after Christ or his teachings. Since you consider him "bad" do you then believe he would be saved? Probably not a question you can answer considering your own non-Christian beliefs. But I would not consider Hitler saved, and while God is ultimate judge, I believe I am on good Scriptural foundations for affirming this by Hitler's bad fruits. We will know for sure on Judgement Day.

I do find it telling that it seems the non-Christians here are the ones introducing complexities into the term "Christianity", and then smugly turning the lazy susan around to smugly point and jester that our own definition of "Christian" is complex. I don't mind your definition SS, but it seems to be Thad who is adding complexities to it. But, whatever.

Good topic derailment though. Jac was clearly right. In my next post/s I hope to deal with my real questions now SS has kindly responded.

[Thadeyus]

Hmm. I mean I would have never thought anyone would seriously believe someone could be both Atheist and Christian, eh Thad?

Okay...a few points. I have never called myself anything other than an atheist (Or, for those nit-picky types on this forum, an Agnostic on the sliding scale of atheism.)

I did mention the Roman Catholic Church's ideas about what they see things as in regards to belief etc. That a lot of people then seem to have gone on to say that Roman Catholics possibly aren't Christians..? *Shrug*

Please remember, it was not I who mentioned various people first, but was answering the questions put to me by others.

And finally, if you want to go and label whom ever you want as being right/true Christians and others as NOT being right/true Christians that's fine. Though meanings effectively become meaningless when you do things like that.

[RickD]

Thadeyus wrote:
I did mention the Roman Catholic Church's ideas about what they see things as in regards to belief etc. That a lot of people then seem to have gone on to say that Roman Catholics possibly aren't Christians..? *Shrug*

Who said Roman Catholics aren't Christians?

I have possibly a more narrow idea of what a Christian is, than some others here. With that said, Roman Catholics who have trusted Christ for salvation, are Christians in my book. Not that my book means a whole lot to others who don't hold to my definition of "Christian".

FYI, protestants aren't Christian unless they have trusted Christ for salvation. So this isn't a Catholic/Protestant thing with me.

[SkepticalSkeeter]

This (Golden Rule) is often sited by Atheists with little to no explanation as to why it is true. Of course I would agree that the GR is true. But why is it BETTER than, 'only the strong survive?' Because you prefer it? Or, maybe because a group of people prefer it?

My response is, so what? Preference is subjective. And on that premise we are left arguing in circles, because you simply can't account for your worldview without smuggling in another worldview that you concurrently claim is false.

The Golden Rule is better than 'only the strong survive' because if people follow it it works. That's why you see the Golden Rule (aka the Ethics of Reciprocity) cited by religions and philosophers all over the world and throughout history (and well before the appearance of Christianity, by the way). It's better because following it yields positive results - happiness, safety, cooperation, stability, and peace. 'Only the strong survive' is inferior to the GR because it's socially maladaptive and following it will lead to strife, violence, and uncertainty, all of which weaken and destabilize a society. In other words, it doesn't work.

[Kurieuo]

Hmm. I mean I would have never thought anyone would seriously believe someone could be both Atheist and Christian, eh Thad?

Okay...a few points. I have never called myself anything other than an atheist (Or, for those nit-picky types on this forum, an Agnostic on the sliding scale of atheism.)

Oh, but wouldn't have your dedicated Catholic mother have baptised you as an infant, just like Hitler's? You may have Atheistic beliefs now, but welcome to Christianity.

[Thadeyus]

Oh, but wouldn't have your dedicated Catholic mother have baptized you as an infant, just like Hitler's? You may have Atheistic beliefs now, but welcome to Christianity.

Bravo on the irony scale of things. Glad to see some one's understanding things.

So...now what I am fits people's definition of Christian?

So...Hitler isn't or is now a Christian? See, with every one changing their ideas about what the definitions mean I am becoming quite lost.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I am troubled I was raised an atheist and have never been baptized! Am I still an atheist? A Christian born-again atheist? An Atheist born-again Christian? A Born-again agnostic-atheistic Christian? A true Atheist hiding in a Christian outergarment? A self-deceived theistic-atheist Christian? A Theistic-atheist nominal Christian...oh! help my lostness!

Oh! I communed at a Roman Catholic Mass a while ago! Will I burn in hell? Oh! Please, SS or Thadeyus! answer me from your great knowledge of things Christian!

FL

[Thadeyus]

... Wrote stuff....

No answers for you until you give some answers, buddy.

( )

[Kurieuo]

Oh, but wouldn't have your dedicated Catholic mother have baptized you as an infant, just like Hitler's? You may have Atheistic beliefs now, but welcome to Christianity.

Bravo on the irony scale of things. Glad to see some one's understanding things.

So...now what I am fits people's definition of Christian?

So...Hitler isn't or is now a Christian? See, with every one changing their ideas about what the definitions mean I am becoming quite lost.

You're becoming lost? Imagine how we feel trying to follow and bring consistency to your such definition of "Christian"!

However, glad to have you aboard Thad. Even if you are the baptised Atheistic kind of Christian. I never thought I'd see the day!

Though your added complexities surrounding what is a "Christian" do add a little confusion. So for the sake of simplicity, I think I'll stick with SS' and my own definition above of Christian simply being a "follower of Christ". Hope you don't mind.

Very much cheers to you and all.

[Thadeyus]

You're becoming lost? Imagine how we feel trying to follow and bring consistency to your such definition of "Christian"!

However, glad to have you aboard Thad. Even if you are the baptized Atheistic kind of Christian. I never thought I'd see the day!

Though your added complexities surrounding what is a "Christian" do add a little confusion. So for the sake of simplicity, I think I'll stick with SS' and my own definition above of Christian simply being a "follower of Christ". Hope you don't mind.

Very much cheers to you and all.

*Sigh* Good to see the silly season of good cheer is running rampant through people's postings.

I, too, am happy with SkepticalSeeker's the dictionary's definition. Though, sadly, getting a consensus on such here seems a daunting task.

[Kurieuo]

Oh, could this be progress on New Years Eve?

So did Hitler follow after Christ's teachings? In this sense of "Christian" at least, I'd think Hitler far from Christian even anti-Christian.

I mean not just with how he treated the Jews, but also arresting Catholic priests and trying to put under his thumb Protestant Christians via his own "Reich Church" which was clearly under the Nazi government control, replacing the Bible with Mein Kampf, and a swastika for the cross. Those who stuck to their strongly held beliefs (the Confessional Church) and followed after Christ were arrested and place in concentration camps. (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ch ... ermany.htm)

Clearly it seems, Hitler was out to follow his own beliefs and teachings, rather than Christ's.

Anyway, regardless of consensus... hopefully we can all lighten up a bit.

Hope you have a Merry Christmas!