What is a Christian?

[(Q)]

Dude, again, that's not the question of the thread. You're arguing a point that isn't relevant to the discussion. I don't disagree with you at all, by the way, but it's just not relevant.

It was you making the comparison between documents written by men and documents containing the word of god. Of course, it's relevant.

Because by reading it, the message is not always so clear. There are parables and such, and some things are fairly vague. Our government and legal systems are supposed to adhere to the letter of the Constitution, correct? How many debates have people had about that document just in your lifetime? Exactly.

Again, you're fallaciously comparing documents written by men and documents containing the alleged word of god. If the word of god is vague, it cannot be considered useful as it tends to create the exact situation we have today, multiple religions with multiple messages.

You're comparing apples with oranges.

So now you want a god that you don't believe to exist providing a definition? First of all, how? Second, if you ask a Christian, they will tell you that their god has made it perfectly clear to them, and that their interpretation is the correct one.

I never said I wanted a god to exist. Which one of the thousands of different Christian sects do your refer and which one is correct?

And let's be fair about this...if you want to make the equation to the master/servant scenario, then consider that in reality the only party you have the opportunity to speak to is, in fact, the servant. So if I had to choose between hearing your definition of what a Christian is, and an actual Christian's definition, knowing that I can't ask God himself, I'd go with the Christian.

Why not simply refer to the bible, that is where you'll find the authority as to what a Christian should be defined, it isn't me or the Christian who has that authority. I've been saying this over and over to you yet you continue to make the claim that it is my definition. Why do you persist?

And perhaps I haven't made myself clear. The problem with your answer arises when one interprets the text. Some see it one way, some see it another. Because it is only text, and there is not central authority (save Catholicism), then the text is open for interpretation.

GOD IS THE AUTHORITY! I hope I don't have to keep repeating this. Those who interpret the bible are NOT the authorities.

 

[(Q)]

I would say that his was a pretty accurate definition of a Christian. One who recoghnizes that they are sinful, that they can never be perfect, but that they do not have to be because if they believe in and have faith in God, he will forgive them.

What about the bible?

No, of course he's not. Most people have no such urge to commit crimes. But the less drastic things - lying, cheating, stuff like that. Things that everyone has done at one time or another.

Everyone? Speak for yourself, please.

I fail to see how Hamtastic's definition has defied the Bible... :shrug: it seems 100% compatible to me. So please explain.?

The definition is not from the bible, it is his own definition. He is defying the bible by not using it to define himself.

 

[(Q)]

Stranger,

Look, I am sorry that you hold some personal grudge against christians and christianity in general. Insulting my God is insulting me.

So, here we have a another good example of the hypocrisy of Christians. First, they define themselves however they wish, ignoring their gods word, until someone criticizes their god and they're ready for fisticuffs.

 

[Balerion]

It was you making the comparison between documents written by men and documents containing the word of god. Of course, it's relevant.

I'm not sure when you're referring to...

Again, you're fallaciously comparing documents written by men and documents containing the alleged word of god. If the word of god is vague, it cannot be considered useful as it tends to create the exact situation we have today, multiple religions with multiple messages.

You're comparing apples with oranges.

It is most certainly not apples to oranges. As far as I understood, it had been accepted among Christians of all sects that men had written the Bible, not God. And one more time, since the point seems to keep flying over your head, you are arguing irrelevant points. The discussion is what makes a Christian a Christian; You, on the other hand, are trying to argue what makes Christianity false.

And please, can you not even see that you are assuming God's attributes? You are assuming that this god would have to think and act a certain way, and that it's message would "naturally" be clear and concise. You don't think for a second that perhaps it wouldn't be.

I never said I wanted a god to exist. Which one of the thousands of different Christian sects do your refer and which one is correct?

Again, I can't see what about this you don't understand. That is not the point of the thread. I say that they all think they are correct, you ask me which one is correct...can you not see how ridiculous and off-topic that is?

Why not simply refer to the bible, that is where you'll find the authority as to what a Christian should be defined, it isn't me or the Christian who has that authority. I've been saying this over and over to you yet you continue to make the claim that it is my definition. Why do you persist?

They do, Q. They do refer to the Bible. Unfortunately, some of them have different interpretations on what the Bible means. Remember, the Bible did not just POP into existence. It had to be constructed.

GOD IS THE AUTHORITY! I hope I don't have to keep repeating this. Those who interpret the bible are NOT the authorities.

But if they believe they are properly interpreting the word of god...? This is what you can't seem to comprehend. Or refuse to.

No wonder Simon thinks you're a twit. Wow.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

A Christian usually believes that they are right and that everyone else is wrong.

A Christian usually believes that everyone else deserves to be killed right now and after that deserves to be tortured for all eternity. That is what the Bible plainly teaches them to believe.

Fortunately for the world, most live in open rebellion to God and disobey His direct commands (in the Law) to kill the imperfect, sinful people they encounter all around them. Those faithful that have obeyed the commands of God to kill offenders are usually put in prison when caught and found guilty.

Unfortunately this can be very real. There was a guy in my own town that was killing off prostitutes in his "faithful" service to God. It would not be that surprising, in this alternate reality of the mind, to find that this guy is self-righteously sitting in his prison cell right now feeling persecuted for his faith.

Kinda makes me sick to think about how bad this can actually get!

 

[(Q)]

It is most certainly not apples to oranges. As far as I understood, it had been accepted among Christians of all sects that men had written the Bible, not God.

Yeah, I get that. He's omnipotent yet couldn't write a book. He can make stone tablets, but couldn't write a book. He also had written for him a book (OT) but decided to change his mind and came out with a different version (NT).

I know the bible was written by men and that it was divinely inspired. Of course, I think that's all rubbish, but the point is that whatever is written in the bible is considered the word of god by those who follow. So, it would make sense that Christians would define themselves based on these words.

And one more time, since the point seems to keep flying over your head, you are arguing irrelevant points. The discussion is what makes a Christian a Christian; You, on the other hand, are trying to argue what makes Christianity false.

Again, one more time and hopefully the last time, I am not doing any such thing, I am simply pointing out that the bible defines Christians, regardless of whether or not it was written by men or by aliens.

And please, can you not even see that you are assuming God's attributes? You are assuming that this god would have to think and act a certain way, and that it's message would "naturally" be clear and concise. You don't think for a second that perhaps it wouldn't be.

I'm not assuming anything about god. He is claimed by those who follow him that he's omniscient. Being clear and concise in delivering a message isn't an assumption, it's obvious.

Again, I can't see what about this you don't understand. That is not the point of the thread. I say that they all think they are correct, you ask me which one is correct...can you not see how ridiculous and off-topic that is?

No, I don't.

They do refer to the Bible. Unfortunately, some of them have different interpretations on what the Bible means. Remember, the Bible did not just POP into existence. It had to be constructed.

Yes, I know that.

But if they believe they are properly interpreting the word of god...? This is what you can't seem to comprehend. Or refuse to.

*sigh* I get that.

No wonder Simon thinks you're a twit. Wow.

WTF is that about? You've decided to be prick, now?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

SetiAlpha, I'm sorry, what biblical passages say I should come and kill you right now so that you will go to hell? I've read the bible several times, I've somehow missed that.

JDawg-I have Q on ignore, so I'm just going by your post. Q is insistant that the inspired word of God, relayed through man's brain, into whatever language, would be exactly what God had in mind. Yet he won't look at how Paul admonished believers not to throw their own freedoms they felt they had in the face of other believers who do not feel similarly. Yes, there were divisions even then, the gnostic beliefs being the most well known. What he was saying was if Joe feels like he needs to obey the Jewish Laws to honor God, that Jack shouldn't show up on his doorstep with a nice chunk of ham, even though Jack doesn't feel any call to follow Jewish Laws. Thus, I believe that murder does not mean execution, and I favor the death penalty, while Ophelia Butts may think it is murder and be against the death penalty, yet we can both be christians. Q seems to have a hard time with this. He wants to put christians in a christian box, and say they are all the same. Isn't that called prejudicial thinking? As a member of a group that has faced alot of prejudice, I'd think he would not want to incur it on anyone else.

 

[Balerion]

Yeah, I get that. He's omnipotent yet couldn't write a book. He can make stone tablets, but couldn't write a book. He also had written for him a book (OT) but decided to change his mind and came out with a different version (NT).

Yeah, that's the story.

I know the bible was written by men and that it was divinely inspired. Of course, I think that's all rubbish, but the point is that whatever is written in the bible is considered the word of god by those who follow. So, it would make sense that Christians would define themselves based on these words.

Yes. But when you have only words, you are left with no authority, and thus the words are open to interpretation. When I earlier made the comparison between the Bible and the Constitution, it was a sound one; consider again that the Constitution, though being, one would think, fairly plain on many subjects, is still interpreted differently by different people, which is why we have a Supreme Court that has to on so many occasions uphold their interpretation of it.

Take the 2nd Amendment, for example; The right to bear arms. Now, does that mean I have a right to personally own a gun, or that I, along with my community, have a right to maintain a militia? Or, as Family Guy proposed, does it simply mean that I have a right to mount a pair of bear arms on my wall?

Again, one more time and hopefully the last time, I am not doing any such thing, I am simply pointing out that the bible defines Christians, regardless of whether or not it was written by men or by aliens.

Agreed. But it is up to the people who read it to interpret the words within. This is circumvented in Catholicism by the Pope, who is the human authority on that matter.

I'm not assuming anything about god. He is claimed by those who follow him that he's omniscient. Being clear and concise in delivering a message isn't an assumption, it's obvious.

No, being clear and concise implies motive. If such a being existed, you have no way of knowing why it did what it did.

No, I don't.

Well, that is a problem you should remedy.

Yes, I know that.

Apparently you don't. Nothing in your argument displays this.

*sigh* I get that.

Again, if you did, then why is it not reflected in your argument? You constantly say that the words should be the authority, but refuse to comprehend that words can be interpreted differently by different people. I cited the Constitution as an example, and you dismissed it on the bogus, irrational notion that they are "apples and oranges" because they don't discuss the same subject (?).

WTF is that about? You've decided to be prick, now?

Dude, I had defended you to the others, but now that I've experienced your debate style first-hand, I have to say that you are one of the more frustrating non-theists I've encountered. You argue illogically, and more of than not you're arguing a completely different topic than me, yet completely oblivious of it even when it's pointed out to you. I don't know if it is, as Simon said (hehe...Simon Said), intentional diversion, or your IQ...but whatever it is, it's really annoying. Having an opinion is one thing, but this is ridiculous.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Dude, I had defended you to the others, but now that I've experienced your debate style first-hand, I have to say that you are one of the more frustrating non-theists I've encountered. You argue illogically, and more of than not you're arguing a completely different topic than me, yet completely oblivious of it even when it's pointed out to you. I don't know if it is, as Simon said (hehe...Simon Said), intentional diversion, or your IQ...but whatever it is, it's really annoying. Having an opinion is one thing, but this is ridiculous.

I knew there was some smart people group meeting in secret! Proof!

 

[Balerion]

I knew there was some smart people group meeting in secret! Proof!

Ex squeeze me?

 

[(Q)]

Q is insistant that the inspired word of God, relayed through man's brain, into whatever language, would be exactly what God had in mind.

Hammy is clearly reaching at straws if he claims that the bible isn't exactly what god had in mind, hence by his own logic, no one can make a claim as to what god actually did have in mind. And if his god cannot relay a message as to what he did have in mind, then the bible isn't the word of his god, but the word of the men who wrote it. Hypocrisy seems to know no bounds with Hammy.

Q seems to have a hard time with this. He wants to put christians in a christian box, and say they are all the same. Isn't that called prejudicial thinking? As a member of a group that has faced alot of prejudice, I'd think he would not want to incur it on anyone else.

More hypocrisy and contradictions. How can Hammy place himself in a "group that has faced a lot of prejudice" when the members of that group are all different in how they interpret the bible? The differing sects of Christianity prejudice each other by definition.

 

[Balerion]

Hammy is clearly reaching at straws if he claims that the bible isn't exactly what god had in mind, hence by his own logic, no one can make a claim as to what god actually did have in mind. And if his god cannot relay a message as to what he did have in mind, then the bible isn't the word of his god, but the word of the men who wrote it. Hypocrisy seems to know no bounds with Hammy.

Why is it reaching at straws? Again, you simply assume that you know what God had in mind.

Hold up...I honestly can't believe I'm arguing on behalf of Christianity here, but let it be effen known that I'm here in the trenches defending against this particular atheist's ignorance, OK? I expect a favor in the future from you Bible Thumpers!

More hypocrisy and contradictions. How can Hammy place himself in a "group that has faced a lot of prejudice" when the members of that group are all different in how they interpret the bible? The differing sects of Christianity prejudice each other by definition.

There are some sects that have taken more of a beating than others. Did you think that they all got equal treatment?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I wasn't clear obviously. I was saying that Q was a member of a group that had faced an inordinate amount of prejudice, being homosexual and all. Here's some more contradictions, just for fun. I'm patently bisexual. I believe in evolution and the big bang. I think cars and computers are good things. I don't give too much of a shit about the environment. I'm pro-choice, pro death penalty, and pro gay marriage. The only reason my kids go to church is that it teaches them some good ethics, although every sunday, after church, Daddy discusses what the children learned, and whether they think it's just a nice story or the word of the Lamb of God written in his own blood, Daddy works with them to make sure they think about the things they are learning, and choosing for themselves, with as little prejudice as possible. They believe what I do, believe in God and Jesus, go to heaven, be good to say thanks in advance. That's what my 7 year old said anyway.

JDawg-if I'm right, and you're wrong on the whole eternity thing, I'll try to bring you an air conditioner.

 

[Balerion]

JDawg-if I'm right, and you're wrong on the whole eternity thing, I'll try to bring you an air conditioner.

Deal. And if I'm right, I'll try to get you a free membership to the Oblivion Fitness Club.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Sweet! What do we do if SAM is right?

 

[(Q)]

Yes. But when you have only words, you are left with no authority, and thus the words are open to interpretation.

The authority is the Christian god, and that god lives day to day with Christians, who also claim they speak and listen to their god. We see these types of posts here almost every day. So no, we are not just left with words. In the minds of Christians, their god is very much here.

When I earlier made the comparison between the Bible and the Constitution, it was a sound one; consider again that the Constitution, though being, one would think, fairly plain on many subjects, is still interpreted differently by different people, which is why we have a Supreme Court that has to on so many occasions uphold their interpretation of it.

There is a clear distinction between scriptures and other documentations in which comparisons cannot be drawn. The bible is the word of god, hence cannot be misconstrued or debated, although we see this all the time. The Constitution was clearly written by men for men, with no authority other than what those men decided. Their decisions were not made by their god.

Agreed. But it is up to the people who read it to interpret the words within. This is circumvented in Catholicism by the Pope, who is the human authority on that matter.

I understand that, which is exactly the problem. Humans aren't the authority on the word of god, the god is the authority.

No, being clear and concise implies motive. If such a being existed, you have no way of knowing why it did what it did.

The motives are clear, worship and obedience of god.

And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
- Bible, I Samuel (ch. XV, v. 22)

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
- Bible, I Samuel (ch. XV, v. 22)

Whether it be good, or whether it be evil, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God, to whom we send thee; that it may be well with us, when we obey the voice of the Lord our God.
- Bible, Jeremiah (ch. XLII, v. 6)

The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.
- Bible, Proverbs (ch. XXX, v. 17)

Well, that is a problem you should remedy.

Again, if you did, then why is it not reflected in your argument? You constantly say that the words should be the authority, but refuse to comprehend that words can be interpreted differently by different people. I cited the Constitution as an example, and you dismissed it on the bogus, irrational notion that they are "apples and oranges" because they don't discuss the same subject (?).

And, I keep telling you that I get that. What you don't seem to get is the fact that the Christian god is the authority and that the word of god is the bible, according to the claims of Christians. I repeat: These are NOT my claims!

I also get the fact that these words have been interpreted in a number of ways by Christians, that's why we have so many different sects. I repeat: I get that!

What you don't seem to get is that the interpretation of the word of god in so many ways allows Christians to define themselves any way they want, hence the fact we have so many different sects. That is why Christians cannot define themselves based on whatever interpretations they've contrived from the bible. Hence, it is only the "fundamentalist" who follows the bible word for word, unfettered by interpretations, who is the true Christian.

Dude, I had defended you to the others, but now that I've experienced your debate style first-hand, I have to say that you are one of the more frustrating non-theists I've encountered. You argue illogically, and more of than not you're arguing a completely different topic than me, yet completely oblivious of it even when it's pointed out to you. I don't know if it is, as Simon said (hehe...Simon Said), intentional diversion, or your IQ...but whatever it is, it's really annoying. Having an opinion is one thing, but this is ridiculous.

I can't apologize for your "interpretation" of my posts. Try reading them word for word, instead.

 

[Balerion]

Sweet! What do we do if SAM is right?

Then we will die like the infidels that we are.

Quick question...if she were to do a suicide bombing, does she get 72 virgin dudes? If so...why bother?

 

[(Q)]

Why is it reaching at straws? Again, you simply assume that you know what God had in mind.

I don't assume anything, I am using the bible as my source. You aren't using a source, at all. You're the one making empty assumptions.

 

[(Q)]

I wasn't clear obviously. I was saying that Q was a member of a group that had faced an inordinate amount of prejudice, being homosexual and all. Here's some more contradictions, just for fun. I'm patently bisexual. I believe in evolution and the big bang. I think cars and computers are good things. I don't give too much of a shit about the environment. I'm pro-choice, pro death penalty, and pro gay marriage. The only reason my kids go to church is that it teaches them some good ethics, although every sunday, after church, Daddy discusses what the children learned, and whether they think it's just a nice story or the word of the Lamb of God written in his own blood, Daddy works with them to make sure they think about the things they are learning, and choosing for themselves, with as little prejudice as possible. They believe what I do, believe in God and Jesus, go to heaven, be good to say thanks in advance. That's what my 7 year old said anyway.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds in Christianity, as does indoctrination and abuse of children. Very sad, indeed.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

No, they've misread that, it's 72 virginians. They didn't know what the hell a Virginia was back then. Easy mistake. Sucks for them though, we Virginians are well known for our patriotic fervor.