SOS message to Christian women and men: Do you accept the stoning of women for reasons of adultery

[Valjean]

The Bible is full of all sorts of legal and moral contradictions. Many different interpretations have been promulgated over the centuries and by different sects, and I'm sure the complexion of christianity will continue to change in the future. Religion always cherry-picks. It has to.

Right now, in the mainstream American and European denominations, Christianity and Judaism are fairly benign, but it would be a mistake to assume it will remain so. There's no reason to believe the burning times won't return.

We are a brutal species. In Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere women are stoned routinely. I've seen videos of African men and women -- witches -- being burned alive by the good Christians of their villages. In some regions today there is an epidemic of child witches being killed, tortured or ostracised. In other places gays are currently being targeted for execution.

There are biblical passages depicting God as brutal and vengeful. There are passages prescribing brutal punishments for trivial offenses. These should not be dismissed as obsolete curiosities. Passages seeming to contradict them should not be relied on to protect disruptive populations.

History shows there is no limit to human viciousness when we feel threatened by distressing individuals or ideas, and more often than not people turn to religion to justify their brutality.

Biblical passages prescribing brutal punishments are ticking time bombs.

 

[kejos]

Depends what you mean by "Christian". The standard definition is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ."

But there is difference about what that teaching was.

What a person professes is evidenced by what they say

Jesus said that what people believe is evidenced by what they do.

Wait a minute - you just said that nobody can tell who's a Christian. Now you're telling me that you know people aren't Christian? This seems contradictory to me.

They are two quite different categories.

In any case, as I pointed out above, it seems like you're working from a different definition of "Christian" than the rest of us.

Why is that?

Abraham and Jacob also weren't Christians, so I don't see how they're relevant to this discussion.

Ask the people who put up Decalogues.

 

[kejos]

The Bible is full of all sorts of legal and moral contradictions.

Such as?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But there is difference about what that teaching was.

I entirely agree. Still, anyone who says anything like "I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ" meets the definition, even if what he thinks the teachings of Jesus Christ were are completely different from what you think they were.

Jesus said that what people believe is evidenced by what they do.

If you say so, but it doesn't matter. By the definition I gave you, it's the profession and not the belief itself that's the determining factor.

They are two quite different categories.

Ah. So (remembering one of your posts in another thread) you do keep an open mind that the Pope, for instance, might actually be truly Christian, by your definition of the term?

Why is that?

You just argued that Christians with conflicting views can't all be Christian, but the definition I gave allows for people with conflicting views to be Christian. Your conclusion doesn't logically flow from the definition I provided, so assuming that your conclusion does logically flow from your defintion, we're using different definitions.

I'd say that the definition I gave is the mainstream one, so if you're using something different (which, as I just explained, it seems you are), then you're using a non-mainstream definition for the term "Christian".

Ask the people who put up Decalogues.

So the Ten Commandments are Christian, now? Have you changed your mind about the Old Testament?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Such as?

Should you answer a fool according to his folly?

 

[kejos]

I entirely agree. Still, anyone who says anything like "I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ" meets the definition

But the definition is obviously of no practical use.

Ah. So (remembering one of your posts in another thread) you do keep an open mind that the Pope, for instance, might actually be truly Christian, by your definition of the term?

The person who calls himself 'Pope' heads an organisation that describes millions of people who call themselves Christians as not actually Christians- in fact, they are described as 'anathema'- cursed. Likewise, every Reformer described 'the Papacy' as Antichrist. So definitions vary, and observers need to take a stance if they are going to make constructive comment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the definition is obviously of no practical use.

What makes you say that? I think it's quite useful.

Your "nobody knows who's really Christian" definition, though... I think that would be hard to put into practical use.

The person who calls himself 'Pope' heads an organisation that describes millions of people who call themselves Christians as not actually Christians- in fact, they are described as 'anathema'- cursed. Likewise, every Reformer described 'the Papacy' as Antichrist. So definitions vary, and observers need to take a stance if they are going to make constructive comment.

Ha! So much for what you said before, eh?

So people can tell me who's a Christian? Because even the angels don't know that.

You know what "even the angels don't know"? Does this mean you're God?

 

[tumbleweed41]

You gotta love these, "what true Christians are" discussions.

 

[kejos]

What makes you say that? I think it's quite useful.

Very useful for skeptics desperate to find something to blame Christianity for. Nobody else.

Your "nobody knows who's really Christian" definition, though... I think that would be hard to put into practical use.

Why?

You know what "even the angels don't know"?

No.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Very useful for skeptics desperate to find something to blame Christianity for. Nobody else.

I don't agree with that.

Off the top of my head (since it's the sort of thing that would be relevant in my work, so it comes immediately to mind), if I was doing a traffic impact study for a house of worship and wanted to estimate when the peak volume of site traffic would occur, figuring out whether the place of worship is Christian (by the definition I gave, not yours) would be very useful in figuring out which day the peak would occur on.

It might also be useful in figuring out, say, whether discrimination against Christians is occurring. If we use the definition we gave, we can actually identify discrimination and work to prevent it. With your definition, because we can't identify who the "Christians" are, we can't do this.

Why?

Well, let's see: name one way in which your definition would be of practical use.

No.

So when you said that Catholics aren't "actually Christian", you were mistaken and you actually don't know whether they are or not?

 

[kejos]

I don't agree with that.

Fine, but it may take more than circular argument to get anyone else to do so.

Well, let's see: name one way in which your definition would be of practical use.

It's not a definition.

So when you said that Catholics aren't "actually Christian",

Where did I say that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fine, but it may take more than circular argument to get anyone else to do so.

How do you think my argument is circular?

It's not a definition.

Implied definition, then. Sheesh.

Where did I say that?

Isn't that what you were arguing here?

The person who calls himself 'Pope' heads an organisation that describes millions of people who call themselves Christians as not actually Christians- in fact, they are described as 'anathema'- cursed.

 

[kejos]

Implied definition, then.

Nor that.

Isn't that what you were arguing here?

No.

 

[Valjean]

Such as?

In addition to the ones we've been discussing? Click:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Considering that each individual person who describes themselves as Christian, has a unique view on what Christianity is, it would be rather presumptuous and arbitrary to tell people whether they are a Christian or not.

 

[kejos]

Considering that each individual person who describes themselves as Christian, has a unique view on what Christianity is

Is that true?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is that true?

Thread after thread here illustrate that Christians have widely varying views on every aspect of Christianity which get's brought up.

Fundamentally, we are all highly subjective, and although applying labels to complex and varied concepts and ideas gives them the illusion of consistency and homogenity, it is nothing more than an illusion.

 

[kejos]

Thread after thread here illustrate that Christians have widely varying views on every aspect of Christianity which get's brought up.

Fundamentally, we are all highly subjective

So the above may be complete garbage.

 

[kejos]

In addition to the ones we've been discussing? Click:

Clicks lead to fabrications.

I take the allegation as withdrawn.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So the above may be complete garbage.

Ah, I see you have no rational retort. If you're lucky, nobody noticed - but, I wouldn't count on it.