The dishonest use of the name "Christian"

[Reverend Rick]

Trying to turn the question around on me when you're the one refusing to answer directly? Why would I be trying to justify it when I'm saying that you can't do it?
You're failing to see the point. You are saying that all things are allowed and no rules should be followed as long as there's love. Thus, I'm asking you if the rules against such sexual relations are still forbidden if there's no violation of "love" involved. You have yet to define "LOVE".
They're not red herrings at all. It's quite telling that you so stubbornly refuse to answer these simple questions. There's a reason I ask them and there's a reason you refuse to answer them. They prove your concept wrong dead in the water.

Which is why King and Scuba refuse to answer simple questions. They want to divert the focus or make it personal, anything to get away from answering a straight forward question. In other words, they have no scholarship to back up their argument so they either quit posting and run away or they refuse to address the issues you raised because they know if they did, they would lose the debate.

Ah, so it's now about Sacrificial love. That's great. But the concept remains. You accuse me left and right of being a "Legalist", so when I ask you if certain behaviors which are outlawed by "legalism" should be allowed, you duck and dodge.

I would caution you against making the argument personal beyond what the argument dictates such as asking you why you refuse to make a statement about whether it's wrong to molest animals, which you strangely never give an answer to.

It's a simple question, if you love your camel is it OK to have sex with it?

 

[ForeverFaithful]

I would have mentioned Ignatius if it weren't for the fact that there's heavy dispute that ALL of his epistles are forged, not just the 7.

The Ignatian Forgeries: They claim to be written by Ignatius in 110 AD, but were forged by another in about 250 AD that deceptively claimed to be Ignatius.

Also, the view that (the author of) "Ignatius" espouses is more of late-Modalism than classical Trinitarianism.

Furthermore, if you want to talk about "Conspiracy", why are 8 of his Epistles unananimously considered forgeries even by those who adopt the remaining 7 as authentic? Who would forge them? Why?

Half these scholars probably believe that the Old Testament is just as much a forgery, what proof do you have that any of them are right?

Intresting website, here's what I found on it

 

[Shermana]

Half these scholars probably believe that the Old Testament is just as much a forgery, what proof do you have that any of them are right?

Intresting website, here's what I found on it

I will ask you once again:

Why are there even 8 (unanimously agreed) forged Ignatian Epistles to begin with?

As for citing their Trinity page, many of their quotes are a bit out of context like with Barnabas and Genesis 1:26, they simply don't understand Philo's Logos Theology. They are however spot on with their references to the Ignatian epistles, which more than just them agree with. Maybe I should go over their claims one by one. They also make the mistake of going with Catholic (Trinitarian) translations of the Church Father writings that have the same problem with translating the Anarthrous Theos as "God" instead of "a god". That's why Justin Martyr called Jesus the "Angel of God".

An example of where they lose sight of context:

140 AD Aristides "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the Earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge
God, the creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16).

I too acknowledge God in the Son and in the Spirit, the Son was His representative and spoke what He commanded him to say. Interpretation issues come to play here.

Just because Bible.ca is right on one thing doesn't mean they are right on others. They are not the only ones espousing that ALL of Ignatius's epistles are forged, not just the 8. So then, why even the 8?

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Sorry did not notice you are Catholic. I am going to have a hard time with this argument because of your rejection of Sola scriptura. Your belief in Dei Verbum with its communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture makes it much harder to argue with you.

Still I will give it a try.

I've yet to join in communion with Rome, but I am on my way.

I would say it is rare in general for a Christian to give all they have to the poor. Complete renunceation of wealth is still an active concept in your monastic traditions.

I think you are wrong about living in common. Some of your monastics still live with each other in that manor.

Vary true but my point was that I know a lot of faithful laymen who give large portions of their income and time to the poor, it's not unchristian to own private property, Paul worked as a tent maker so that he wouldn't be dependant on charity.

Saint George and Mercius are both mythic figures of the early church. The first two centuries of your faith are filled with the real historic writtings of bishops who in general would not allow military men to join the church.

We have the relics of both these men, I see no reason to doubt their existences any more than I see reason to doubt Napoleon.

One writing among many from early Church

"If we all derive our origin from one man, whom God created, we are plainly all of one family. Therefore it must be considered an abomination to hate another human, no matter how guilty he may be. For this reason God has decreed that we should hate no one, but that we should eliminate hatred. So we can comfort our enemies by reminding them of our mutual relationship. For if we have all been given life by the same God then what else are we but brothers? ... Because we are all brothers God teaches us never to do evil to one another but only good - giving aid to those who are oppressed, and experiencing hardship, and giving food to the hungry." - Lactantius

For the first three centuries, no Christian writing which has survived to our time condoned Christian participation in war. Some Christians held that for them all bloodshed, whether as soldiers or as executioners, was unlawful. At one stage in its history the influential Church of Alexandria seems to have looked askance upon receiving soldiers into its membership and to have permitted enlistment in the legions only in exceptional circumstances (A History of Christianity, pp. 242-243).

A many times in the Church people have held views that the church did not give the status of Dogma, these teaching never were dogmatic,

Augustine though a later father had the authority to speak on the matter, and thus developed the Just War theory. Which in itself is not dogmatic.

Read on

6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Clearly Pauls teaching is only marry if your very weak.

This is from a Catholic site

6. Further, in the very case of the more immoderate requirement of the due of the flesh, which the Apostle enjoins not on them by way of command, but allows to them by way of leave, that they have intercourse also beside the cause of begetting children; although evil habits impel them to such intercourse, yet marriage guards them from adultery or fornication. For neither is that committed because of marriage, but is pardoned because of marriage. Therefore married persons owe one another not only the faith of their sexual intercourse itself, for the begetting of children, which is the first fellowship of the human kind in this mortal state; but also, in a way, a mutual service of sustaining one another's weakness, in order to shun unlawful intercourse: so that, although perpetual continence be pleasing to one of them, he may not, save with consent of the other. For thus far also,
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm

Because Celibacy is seen as a higher calling does not mean enjoying a healthy expression of sexuality with your spouse is a sin, intimacy and (potential) procreation are part of a healthy sexual relationship.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

I will ask you once again:

Why are there even 8 (unanimously agreed) forged Ignatian Epistles to begin with?

why not tell me? It very well could have been they were not forged, or it very well could have been a scribe put a letter under the wrong name.

Let us say that the 8 letters were forged in the 4th century, sometime before Nicece, are you seriously suggesting that this 8 tiny letters were able to convince a whole council that easily, and for what purpose?

Also if there was a forgery, why is it we are able to track Arianism to its source, the heretic who began it.

As for citing their Trinity page, many of their quotes are a bit out of context like with Barnabas and Genesis 1:26, they simply don't understand Philo's Logos Theology. They are however spot on with their references to the Ignatian epistles, which more than just them agree with. Maybe I should go over their claims one by one. They also make the mistake of going with Catholic (Trinitarian) translations of the Church Father writings that have the same problem with translating the Anarthrous Theos as "God" instead of "a god". That's why Justin Martyr called Jesus the "Angel of God".

An example of where they lose sight of context:



I too acknowledge God in the Son and in the Spirit, the Son was His representative and spoke what He commanded him to say. Interpretation issues come to play here.

Just because Bible.ca is right on one thing doesn't mean they are right on others. They are not the only ones espousing that ALL of Ignatius's epistles are forged, not just the 8. So then, why even the 8?

Alright let us disregard the trinity page, as it would be too much energy to debate.

What if Ignatius was not a person? What if he was illiterate? What if secretly he was part of the free masons?

 

[Alceste]

I mean the ONE HOLY APOSTOLIC AND CATHOLIC Church, founded in 33 AD

I know this will come as a shock, but some Christians are not Catholic. Sorry to be the breaker of bad news if this is the first you've heard of that. I guess they didn't murder enough heretics. Bad luck!

 

[ForeverFaithful]

I know this will come as a shock, but some Christians are not Catholic. Sorry to be the breaker of bad news if this is the first you've heard of that. I guess they didn't murder enough heretics. Bad luck!

What knowledge of Christianity do you have? both the Apostles and Nicene creeds affirm a Catholic church

There was one church for centuries, and that always defined a Christian as a baptized believer, no one has a right to change that.

 

[Alceste]

What knowledge of Christianity do you have? both the Apostles and Nicene creeds affirm a Catholic church

There was one church for centuries, and that always defined a Christian as a baptized believer, no one has a right to change that.

Who cares what affirms a Catholic Church? As I already pointed out, not all Christians are Catholic, so it's irrelevant.

There were always other forms of Christianity. Where else, apart from dissenting Christians, could the Catholics have found all those heretics to torture and kill?

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Who cares what affirms a Catholic Church? As I already pointed out, not all Christians are Catholic, so it's irrelevant.

There were always other forms of Christianity. Where else, apart from dissenting Christians, could the Catholics have found all those heretics to torture and kill?

Do you even know what Catholic means?

Who cares who calls themselves Christians now, the Church created and defined the term in the first centuries AD and it can not be changed.

I assume by Catholic you mean Roman, can you please show me where I said all Christians are Romans?

 

[Alceste]

Do you even know what Catholic means?

Who cares who calls themselves Christians now, the Church created and defined the term in the first centuries AD and it can not be changed.

I assume by Catholic you mean Roman, can you please show me where I said all Christians are Romans?

Yes, being a consistent person, I know that people who call themselves Catholic are Catholic. Really, it's not half as complicated as you're trying to make it.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Yes, being a consistent person, I know that people who call themselves Catholic are Catholic. Really, it's not half as complicated as you're trying to make it.

Catholic means universal,

I'm going to call myself a Muslim, worship Shiva, eat pork and sodomize. Am I a Muslim? No because I do not meet the definition of that term, which was denied by followers of Islam I can't change it just by calling myself Muslim.

 

[Alceste]

Catholic means universal,

I'm going to call myself a Muslim, worship Shiva, eat pork and sodomize. Am I a Muslim? No because I do not meet the definition of that term, which was denied by followers of Islam I can't change it just by calling myself Muslim.

Once again, you are incorrect. This is not how language works. The definition of words depends on common usage, not your personal preference.

 

[waitasec]

Do you even know what Catholic means?

Who cares who calls themselves Christians now, the Church created and defined the term in the first centuries AD and it can not be changed.

I assume by Catholic you mean Roman, can you please show me where I said all Christians are Romans?

wasn't the term was created in acts?

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Once again, you are incorrect. This is not how language works. The definition of words depends on common usage, not your personal preference.

People outside a group do not have a right to change the language of any other group no matter how often they miss use a term

 

[ForeverFaithful]

wasn't the term was created in acts?

Yes, it referred to baptized believers

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The problem is that definitions of particular religion tend to vary greatly. To me (and, I think, the majority of people) a "Christian" can be someone who "identifies with the Christian religious movement, believed that Jesus Christ is descended from God (or was God), and believes that the Bible is, in whole or in part, the word of God". In my experience, I've yet to find a particular denomination of Christianity that does come under this definition, so it works for me so far.

For me, religious definitions are dependant on belief, not action. You can argue that someone who is selfish or intolerant ins't a Christian, but to me as long as they still hold the above beliefs they can still freely be considered a Christian. In truth, the particular religion a person comes under isn't a claim we're generally willing to investigate. If someone says they're a Christian, we generally take their word from them and put them under that heading. It could turn out that that individual's beliefs run completely contrary to what we define as being Christian, and they simply call themselves Christian by an arbitrary logic.

I think to say that definitions can't change is ludicrously short-sighted, especially when you consider that almost any word in almost any language develops multiple meanings and various connotations. Definitions change over time, and I would argue that such discussions are largely irrelevant to the subject at hand. The only time the subject really matters is when one person is confused as to the other person's designation. This comes up time and time again (as I'm sure everyone on this forum has encountered) with the definition of "atheist", which is a subject of a lot of debate and discussion on many levels. For me, it is important that people understand and apply the broadest term of the word, since I believe there are common misconceptions about the position and connotations that the word carries that present an inaccurate picture of those who consider themselves atheists, when the term itself has always had a broader definition which remains relatively constant.

In other words, to argue "people who say they are X are not actually X because I define X as Y" is arbitrary up to a point. It's really based on what the most common or accepted definition of the term is. It's fine to specify that you have a personal definition, but applying that definition to others and saying they don't qualify is kind of silly when you have a particular definition that is far more exclusive (or completely different) than the accepted one. If I so wished, I could argue that a Christian is "somebody who regularly scratched their left elbow" and that therefore most people who call themselves Christian are being dishonest. Such an argument is, obviously, absurd.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

People outside a group do not have a right to change the language of any other group no matter how often they miss use a term

Yes, they do. Language isn't somethign that belongs only to a specific group and should be completely impenetrable to all others. Language is constantly being changed and altered by society. The definitions of words change over time, whether you like it or not. You're welcome to have your own personal definition of a word, but you have to understand that to have a meaningful and accurate dialogue with another person a general standard has to be set in certain definitions, and in most cases you will have to use the most commonly accepted current definition.

 

[Alceste]

People outside a group do not have a right to change the language of any other group no matter how often they miss use a term

It's not that I don't understand your onion, you don't need to keep repeating yourself, it's just that it's an unfounded opinion. Language is determined by common usage, not your presumption of entitlement.

 

[waitasec]

Yes, it referred to baptized believers

and????
so what is the problem....


can't you guys just get along without judging who's got it right....

i mean really....this entire discussion is about who has it right...is god that weak that he can't reveal himself to others but actually needs the assistance of those that "got it right"

i find this rather silly.


i think it more about being right then doing what is right...
the act of mutual respect

 

[Alceste]

and????
so what is the problem....


can't you guys just get along without judging who's got it right....

i mean really....this entire discussion is about who has it right...is god that weak that he can't reveal himself to others but actually needs the assistance of those that "got it right"

i find this rather silly.


i think it more about being right then doing what is right...
being mutually respectful to one another.

I find it silly too. It's the twisted love child of special pleading and no true Scotsman. "All language is defined by common usage except this one word, which coincidentally happens to belong exclusively to me and people exactly like me."