OK.. enough of the "No True Scotsman" B.S.

[opiate69]

Once and for all, would you self-identified Christians please define what makes a person a True Christian™?

[More Than A Feeling]

1. Anyone who wants to claim the mantle, let them be held to the standard

Nothing more than that.

[beam me up scottie]

2. ~

:popcorn:

[opiate69]

3. BMUS..

please, do stick around (I love reading your dismantling of fallacious arguments..)

[beam me up scottie]

4. Why, thank you.

I admire your work as well.

[jonnyblitz]

5. i can't wait to see the replies....I have my own views, as an atheist.

I would say the ones who adhere to the bible the most are the truer christians . I mean why bother to be one if you can't stomach it's book of teachings or ignore the parts you don't like , such as leviticus where it says gay guys like me are worthy of death plus all the anti woman stuff. if you have to neuter the religion so badly just to make it palatable and humane, why even bother? just my opinion. I never could understand this liberal christian thing, the fundies i understand.

Like it was said by somebody on a documentary I just watched made by a fundie who turned atheist, if you believe the bible, "god really does hate fags". :shrug:

[opiate69]

6. True that..

actually, you can take it a step further and say that if you believe the Bible, god really hates everyone.. isn't the underlying theme of salvation really just "every human is a piece of shit, worthy of nothing less than eternal torture.. until/unless they become saved"?

[jonnyblitz]

7. if you were to take the definition of who is a true christian that

many of the DUers use..then hardly any of the christians since the beginning of christianity have been true christians if , by definition, only the good, liberal people are true christians, Hell, the FOUNDERS of christianity weren't "true" christians using that line of reasoning. I don't know. I am falling asleep and need to go to bed. I will be curious to read this thread tomorrow. I would like to hear what others think.

good topic. :thumbsup:

[opiate69]

8. Thanks!

I'm looking forward to it too, although I imagine there will be some who'll think I'm trying to spring a trap.. I really am just curious as to what these people think.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Me too.

I've heard the term "cafeteria christian" used before.
But doesn't that describe all christians?

[opiate69]

10. yeah.. pretty much does...

[bertha katzenengel]

65. "doesn't that describe all christians?" not really

FTR, I'm a former fundy, now agnostic (leaning atheist).

IMO "cafeteria christian" applies only to those who express a deep belief in the Bible as the literal word of God.

Christians who do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible don't deserve the term "cafeteria christian." For them, it's not a matter of picking and choosing what to believe and what to practice; it's a matter of interpretation. Literal believers accept only one interpretation: the literal one. Except, of course, when scripture calls for something they don't like.

Example: it's usually the literal believers who are the most anti-gay. They cite passages from Leviticus (and Romans) to back up their claim that God abhors homosexuality.

But two things point out their hypocrisy: 1. that they say the Bible is literally God's word implies that they must take it all literally, and 2. there are passages in Leviticus about barbaric punishments which they do not practice, such as stoning recalcitrant children.

A more, say, mellow christian realizes not only that the Bible can't possibly be the literal word of the One True God, but that its interpretation must be tempered by reason and a knowledge of history and the culture of the times in which the books were written.

[jonnyblitz]

67. good post. but how does the non literal interpreter deal with those

ugly passages, like the ones in leviticus? just ignore them? put them in context with something else that negates them? I mean they are THERE. if not taken literally how are they taken? :hi:

[Az]

11. Only one person I can think of that could give a credible answer

And he hasn't been doing personal appearances for a couple thousand years.

[catbert836]

33. What about appearing in people's food?

He's been doing that pretty consistently, right? He does tortillas, tacos, refried beans, and so many other things. And I personally can't wait fot his mother's gig on a mountain face in Ecuador next month...

[beam me up scottie]

35. Ack!!! There's an evil atheist and he's

bashing Jesus!

Oh, wait.

False alarm, everybody.

It's not a member of the EAC, it's Catbert!

Although he may eventually come over to the darkside...(we have free rubber chickens)
:evilgrin:

[catbert836]

36. Oooh! Rubber chickens!

I've always wanted one of those...

[beam me up scottie]

38. Here ya go!

But you have to sign over your soul to Darth Dawkins first...

[catbert836]

39. Hmmm... it's so tempting...

Rubber chicken on one hand, my immortal soul on the other... really tough choice.
Hard to believe that just 6 moths ago, I was a Persecuted Christian(TM).

[beam me up scottie]

41. You've come a long way

Baby!
:rofl:

Seriously, though, you have.

It's been cool watching you on your journey.

[catbert836]

43. *Appreciated*

I seem to have gone through about 15 different religions on my so-called journey, and pissed off adherents of all of them all along the way, so it's anyone's guess which one of them is gonna call the hit out on me.
Kidding... I think.

[Az]

44. The last two words are the most important

Keep on thinking.

[catbert836]

45. OK, I will.

Hopefully they won't do a lobotomy on me instead...
*Yawn* with that i'm gonna have to say goodnight. Great discussion, see ya tomorrow, Az and BMUS.
Peace.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Although pretty much an atheist now

I have a scholar's background in the Bible and Church history and had started down the road that would have led to ordination in the Episcopal Church (which is why I am pretty much an atheist now, but that is a different thread.)

What is a True Christian? If you define "true Christian" as "one who will be saved", then Scripture is very clear:

"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.

Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
<38> And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'

And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'

Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'

Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Matthew 25:31-46

Pity that more so-called Christians don't follow their own holy teachings.

[cosmik debris]

13. Liberals like Matthew

Conservatives like Paul. They are both in the Bible. Matthew may be "above the fold", but Paul gets more "column inches". Wasn't it Paul who said you don't have to be a Jew to be a Christian? Doesn't Paul define Christian more than Matthew does (in a contemporary sense)?

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. Paul wasn't really a conservative

The passage you were looking for is: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)" Given the political and social situation of the mid 1st century CE, that was a pretty radical assertion to be making.

Also, a comparison of Paul's letters quickly shows that Paul was ultimately a pragmatist: He told his audience what ever it would take to get them to convert and keep them strong in their faith. Sometimes that meant taking a fairly conservative view, sometimes that meant presenting more radical ideas. He didn't lie, exactly, but he was so convinced that Jesus would return in the next ten minutes that he didn't spend a lot of time developing an internally consistent theology or even keeping his stories straight (Paul gives three different versions of his conversion and two different versions of the Last Supper.)

Paul spends very little time working out and describing, "What is a Christian"; as far as he was concerned, you either were or you weren't and the rest was up to God. In his latter letters, when he begins to understand that Jesus' return might not be such an immediate matter, he is more concerned with maintaining community rather than establishing theology.

By and large, the Gospels are still the best bet when looking for fine points of doctrine. I would think that the presumed words of the Savior Himself would outweigh the opinions of a mere man :shrug:

[shrike]

14. We're all Christians

Just some of us are lousy Christians. Or downright crummy. Even evil -- look at Pat Robertson's eyes and tell me he's not crazy or evil. But he's a Christian.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. Before defining "true Christian," we should define "Christian"

Is a Christian anyone who claims to be a Christian, or is self-identification even a requirement? Are there denominational prerequisits (as the Catholics would assert) or not (as the Universalists claim)? Is this something that God alone can tell, or is there some external metric that others can use?

We must decide if the person is even Scottish before arguing over whether he is a true Scotsman.

[salvorhardin]

22. Can an atheist be a true Christian?

If an atheist lives their life according to all the precepts as laid out by DU's liberal 'true' Christians, except for that belief thing, then can an atheist be a 'true' Christian too? I ask because it seems like DU's liberal 'true' Christians are assigning Christianity based on behavior.

[TechBear_Seattle]

26. That is the fallacy of the "true Scotsman" argument

The classic example of the "True Scotsman" argument is:

Person 1: Scotsmen don't add butter to their oatmeal.

Person 2: My friend was born and raised in Inverness, and attended university in Edinburgh. He always adds butter to his oatmeal.

Person 1: Your friend can't be a true Scotsman.

The fallacy is to make sweeping generalizations about a group, and then exclude from that group anyone who does not meet the sweeping generalizations.

For whatever reason, this fallacy is commonly applied with regards to religious group. I can not speak for what situation prompted Opiate69 to post, but I have seen frequently:

Person 3: Christians love their fellow human beings, including feminists, homosexuals and non-Christians.

Me: Pat Robertson is an internationally recognized Christian pastor and he shows nothing but disgust for those people, calling repeatedly for God to destroy them.

Person 3: Pat Robertson isn't a true Christian.


I think Opiate69's question is reasonable. With so many liberal Christians asserting that Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham, George W. Bush, Bill Frist, etc., etc. are not true Christians, what are the criteria being used to make that determination? More to the point, what standards can outsiders apply so we don't keep annoying true Christians by pointing out people who are not?

[beam me up scottie]

17. It's too bad that DU's liberal christians

seem to be wary of threads like this now.

I can't say I really blame them.

Still, I would have liked to hear how they define themselves.

They've heard our side of the story plenty of times, but nobody ever asks them what sets them apart from others.

[Brentos]

18. Bah (testing the waters)

How do you define a TRUE Democrat, Republican, male, female (what about XXY chromosone people?), Buddhist, Agnostic, etc. 'Tis a silly argument laid as a trap. I am what I believe, and if you want to understand my belief then you will need to study the Bible and listen to such people as Dr. Paul Meiers <sp?>, Ray Vanderlaan, and other wonderful videos and such that explain it. I would never claim to be a TRUE Christian, thus stating that I don't think anyone who lives up to my standards is. I'm sick of semantical arguments, partisan attacks, and such. I'm willing to discuss with the interested and the curious, but most (broad-brush) postings here turn into atheists (or whatever they wish to be called this week...see other threads) attacking anything a Christian posts. And the next response is then: blah-blah-blah if you can't take the heat-blah-blah. No, I'd rather not take the heat when I can expend my energy on people who actually care about my POV. These threads just push more of the religous left away. Example, my wife is a loving Christian Democrat, but if she was attacked like this constantly, she would become non-partisan politically. Her faith is important to her, it identifies her, as atheists identify themselves, gays, muslims, etc. No one like being constantly attacked, and if you notice, the Christians here, on this website are not the ones attacking constantly, so, please, be nice to us, were tree-hugging-hippie-liberals like y'all, so just hug us. :-)

[beam me up scottie]

19. Thanks for insulting us.

Maybe when you learn to respect others, you will be able to carry on an intelligent conversation with people who are different from you.

Most of the atheists and believers on DU accomplish that feat daily.

Let us know when you think you're ready for the next step.

I think there are some issues you need to work on.

[Brentos]

20. No insults intended for those who are nice

But, based on your own quotes, you can see there is an issue here at DU of the two sides not playing nice. Why can't you blame them?

It's too bad that DU's liberal christians
seem to be wary of threads like this now.

I can't say I really blame them.

Still, I would have liked to hear how they define themselves.

They've heard our side of the story plenty of times, but nobody ever asks them what sets them apart from others.

I stated I am more then willing to discuss, and have in several threads, yet I've also seen many more that are just attacks. Heck, just look at the antagonistic titles of some of the current posts:

Why do Christians worship a God who is less moral than they are?
God an Abuser? Believers Co-dependent?
An "All Loving God?" 20,000 or more dead in quake. Many are children.

Or posts:

Actually, it's worse - people confuse criticizing their religion... ...with bashing them.

We're not criticizing the believers themselves for being believers. When it's pointed out that there is no evidence for some outlandish takes insisted to be true, that is NOT bashing a believer.

Some refuse to acknowledge that in their rush to play the victim, however. I think that does both sides a disservice.

This treats one sides belief as outlandish tales, thus framing an attack, not a discussion.

or

tx_dem41 (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-12-05 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. I'm an Atheist....and I feel a significant and very vocal minority on ..
this forum is definitely hostile to Christianity in general.

Again, it most likely is a minority, but a very vocal minority that makes it...not fun here at times.

Or, even your own posts which show that you think Christians often get attacked here:

jonnyblitz (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-12-05 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. i am beginning to think it's a requirement. nt


Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
arwalden (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-12-05 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. ~


Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
beam me up scottie (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-12-05 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #34
46. Jonny,
you ought to come around here more often.

Yes, you have a devil-smiley, but that is kidding-on-the-square.

By your own words you lament how badly Christians are treated here, then wonder why they (some) won't play nice.

Ana again, contrary to your generalization of me from this one post, I have carried on several excellent discussion/debates on these boards with people who think differently then I. The point here, is that the hostile environment approach to debate just makes many on the religious left...well...leave. It's the same reason many on the non-Christian side are hostile, because some far right Christian jerk-holes have been hostile to them.

BTW: which part of my post did you find insulting and why? It started with an explanation as to why the question appears to be a trap, then goes on to (admittedly) broad-brush certain people (thus, the reason for the broad-brush alert to let those who aren't that way know I'm not speaking of them) and then explained how that types of response can cause some to leave the boards/party, etc. Or was it the "blah-blah-blah's"? Mildly insulting, I would guess (and for which I will apologize), but no less so then baiting traps.

[beam me up scottie]

25. Bullshit.

Here's a little hint for you, when you know atheists have just spent the last month trying to get the believers in this forum to show the tiniest modicum of respect for us by accepting our definition of ourselves (and for the most part, failing) you don't start out a conversation by posting

"(or whatever they wish to be called this week...see other threads)"

Genius.

NOTHING else you posted matters.

You dissed us immediately and then went on with your puling, as if it justified your lack of respect.

I might have been interested in your pov, but you made your intentions quite clear.

And I give as good as I get.

Mind you, if someone posts a negative view of atheists/agnostics/concretionalists here (or anywhere) I definitely expect a strong response in kind.

And you got one, didn't you?

[Brentos]

46. Yeah, bullshit

Here's a little hint for you, when you know atheists have just spent the last month trying to get the believers in this forum to show the tiniest modicum of respect for us by accepting our definition of ourselves (and for the most part, failing) you don't start out a conversation by posting



"(or whatever they wish to be called this week...see other threads)"


Genius.

NOTHING else you posted matters.

You dissed us immediately and then went on with your puling, as if it justified your lack of respect.

I might have been interested in your pov, but you made your intentions quite clear.

And I give as good as I get.


Mind you, if someone posts a negative view of atheists/agnostics/concretionalists here (or anywhere) I definitely expect a strong response in kind.


And you got one, didn't you?

Whoo-ahhh.. Sure did, and deservedly so. I did not mean to come off quite as I posted (after reading this after getting home). It was trying to make a point about people on one side getting mad at people on the other side for making sweeping generalizations about them making sweeping generalizations. Boy-oh, Did I come across wrong, and I do apologize. The comment that tipped you off was more about sweeping generalizations then blowing off, although it came off completely wrong due to writing it while at work in a bad mood. Again, I apologize. The main point is that I feel that many sweeping generalizations are made about Christians when they really mean neo-con far-right Christians, such as James Dobson and his ilk, where many (most? maybe stretching here) are not like that, although I fell into a poop-pile I was trying to step around due to my own ignorance. So, thanks for piling it back at me, I deserved it!

[beam me up scottie]

53. Oh, great.

Way to make me feel bad.

I'm sorry for jumping your post.

I've been touchy since that particular comment made the bonus round during the last game of "piss off the atheist".

I do get where you are coming from and I try to qualify my statements when I go on a rant-but it helps to hear how it comes off to those who aren't veterans of this forum.

And I meant it when I said that I don't blame liberal christians for not stepping into the minefield.

But, we need you guys here.

Just as we hate being represented on DU by an obnoxious angry atheist, you guys have to remind everybody that you're not like the flip side of that coin either.

Don't let the angry theists monopolize this forum.
(we're working on our side too)

Speak up!


And again, sorry for the misunderstanding- you should have gotten a second chance before I unloaded.

I have done the "Wow, I'll never say that again!" dance more than a few times myself.

:hi:

[Brentos]

61. Thanks Beam!

We both kinda misunderstood due to our regular perceptions of attacks, so thanks, man! I am more then happy to hang out and chat with you guys, 'cuz most of the people here are very cool and I do love chatting with different POV's. I think we both, for our liberal confessional, need to find a freeper-Christian-flying-monkey-right and attack him together! :-)

[BiggJawn]

21. What do I wish to be called this week?

Why, anything you self-rightous people of the book WANT to call me! Apostate, that's a good 'un...So's Reprobate..."Sinner", and "Deluded"...Oh, I almost forgot-"Hell-Bound", now THAT'S a good one!

"No one like being constantly attacked..."
No fucking shit? Try being a minority like an "Out" Atheist in "The World"...

"These threads just push more of the religous left away..."
If they're Dominionists, I certainly HOPE they're being pushed away.

"so, please, be nice to us..."
Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know....or else you'll go cry to the mods that you're being "bashed"...

[salvorhardin]

28. I've always prefered infidel

It's got such a nice ring to it and it's fun to say. :P

[beam me up scottie]

30. No no no...

You're supposed to ask the pulers what they think we should be called.
:spank:

It's too difficult for them to keep up, you see.

[BiggJawn]

40. Oooh! Yeah, that's a GOOD one! As in "Die, Infidel SCUM!"

How could I forget that one?
Thanks!

[beam me up scottie]

29. Hepl! Hepl!

Daddy, I insulted the atheists and now they're persecutin' me!

[salvorhardin]

31. Persecuted

In the same way Kirk and Spock persecuted Trelane I suppose. :-)

[beam me up scottie]

34. Exactly like Trelane.

Someone needs to pick up their toys and go home.

[BiggJawn]

42. Yeah, Jeho-uh, I mean Trelane...

"They inform Trelane that he will not be allowed to have another planet to play with until he learns how to treat other beings with respect."

Maybe that's why we haven't heard much from Jehovah in 2 millenia...

His parents "grounded" Him.

[Brentos]

47. Sorry, man.

Why, anything you self-rightous people of the book WANT to call me! Apostate, that's a good 'un...So's Reprobate..."Sinner", and "Deluded"...Oh, I almost forgot-"Hell-Bound", now THAT'S a good one!

I've never called anyone that. Seriously, what do you wish to be called? What do you believe/not believe/trust, etc.?

"No one like being constantly attacked..."
No fucking shit? Try being a minority like an "Out" Atheist in "The World"...

Dude, language. I agreed in my post that the far right Christians (generalization) were the root cause, as they attack the other side. But, I still posit that attacks from the atheists here often come off too strongly as attacks, instead of as inquiries, questions, etc.

"These threads just push more of the religous left away..."
If they're Dominionists, I certainly HOPE they're being pushed away.

I'm not familiar with the term "Dominionist"? What do you mean by this?

"so, please, be nice to us..."
Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know....or else you'll go cry to the mods that you're being "bashed"...

I've never done that, nor would I. I think you are overgeneralizing here. If my previous posts offended you, then I apologize, I was wrong in the way I stated what I did. (Heck, I apologize even if it didn't offend you). :-)

[BiggJawn]

50. You don't know what a Dominionist is? Seriously?

Get thee to "google". Learn about your darker "brethren" and their agenda of "Every Knee shall BEND, Every Head shall BOW", then you'll understand the anger and rage of us non-believers.

Never heard of a Dominionist... Jeebus Crisco! I'm a damn ATHEIST, and I'll warrant I know MORE about your religion than YOU do!

I'm not insulting you, I'm just stating what appears to me to be a sublime paradox.

[TechBear_Seattle]

52. Not a "sublime paradox." Merely effect following cause.

With respect to Brentos and others, my personal experience has been that the more I learned about Christian doctrine and history, the less I came to believe. Not very good, seeing as I started out wanting to become a priest. Most of the other non-believers I know have travelled a similar path of becoming atheists because they studied the religion of their choice (usually, but not always, Christianity.)

[Brentos]

62. Nah, never heard the term.

I actually do know a lot about my religion from Bible studies and the text and supporting text itself. What I've tended to avoid are the churches (sects, cults, branches) that break off from it. I'm surprised by how many adherents of the faith don't actually read their source material, but instead rely on church doctrine instead. Sad, really.

[BiggJawn]

64. You should learn of those "Break-offs"

if only to have some inkling into the people who are dragging your religion through the mud for fun and profit.
Especially profit.

[salvorhardin]

51. RJ Rushdoony

Here you go: RJ Rushdoony and Dominionism.

[opiate69]

23. ...

"How do you define a TRUE Democrat, Republican, male, female (what about XXY chromosone people?), Buddhist, Agnostic, etc."
Generally speaking, I don't. Fpr example, Joe Lieberman is a Democrat.. now, on some (well, maybe a lot) of issues, he is farther right than me, but that doesn't mean he's not a dem.

"Tis a silly argument laid as a trap."
Told ya, BMUS.. lol.

"I would never claim to be a TRUE Christian, thus stating that I don't think anyone who lives up to my standards is. "
Then, with all due respect, you are one of very few... it seems any time somebody points out abhorrent behavior on the part of self proclaimed Christians, other, more ratoinal Christians all but trip over themselves trying to proclaim the offender as not really being a "true christian".

" Example, my wife is a loving Christian Democrat, but if she was attacked like this constantly,"
I really fail to see how my original post was an attack.
:shrug:

"so, please, be nice to us, were tree-hugging-hippie-liberals like y'all, so just hug us. :-)"
I'm sincerely trying to, whether you believe that or not. Perhaps if someone could tell me why exactly Pat Robertson or Chimpy McCokespoon aren't "real christians", I might be better able to stop,as you say, broad-brushing all christians.

[beam me up scottie]

27. What do you feel like being called this week?

Me?

Why, thank you for asking.

I'm called the Uppity Atheist 'cuz I don't know my place.

I'm happy to see we have two DU christians who were brave enough to answer your question, and they did quite well.

And nothing terrible happened to them.

Oh, and then there was the one who decided to stick his arm in the cage and give the animals the finger.

Too bad about him.

[opiate69]

32. I want to be called "Rock God". LOL

Well, at least tonight. ( I have a show in 2 hours.)
Or maybe Sex God... ah fuck it.. heathen, infidel, it all works for me. :)

I was glad to see a couple people answer too... they definitely gave me some food for thought.. I'm sure i'll be going over this thread in my head all weekend now (unless of course, I get distracted by indictments and frog-marches)

[beam me up scottie]

37. Those would be nice distractions,

for a change.

Good luck with the show, I'll kick a cowboy's ass for you.

-damn whiny simpering little Nashville pretty boys-I hate 'em.

[Brentos]

49. Rock God

As my penance for poor replies earlier, I will refer to you as "Rock God"! :-)

[opiate69]

66. Mwahahaha..

all shall bow before my six-stringed greatness!

[Brentos]

48. Mea Culpa

"How do you define a TRUE Democrat, Republican, male, female (what about XXY chromosone people?), Buddhist, Agnostic, etc."
Generally speaking, I don't. Fpr example, Joe Lieberman is a Democrat.. now, on some (well, maybe a lot) of issues, he is farther right than me, but that doesn't mean he's not a dem.

I'll buy that. Just as I'm a Christian. I would not say I'm a better, more "true" or more "Christian" than another. That is, I believe, the fallacy of the original post.

"Tis a silly argument laid as a trap."
Told ya, BMUS.. lol.

I still think this was a trap post, and I stepped in it and have apologized for my bad behavior.

"I would never claim to be a TRUE Christian, thus stating that I don't think anyone who lives up to my standards is. "
Then, with all due respect, you are one of very few... it seems any time somebody points out abhorrent behavior on the part of self proclaimed Christians, other, more ratoinal Christians all but trip over themselves trying to proclaim the offender as not really being a "true christian".

I'll stand by you when others claim they are the "true" Christian and agree that they are being ignorant. Heck, they are being ignorant of their own religion, let alone common sense. :-)

" Example, my wife is a loving Christian Democrat, but if she was attacked like this constantly,"
I really fail to see how my original post was an attack.

It was more like a briar patch trap. Set up to shred those who dare enter it. Well, or at least those who trip into it like I did! :-) Could just be my day. Again, I'm sorry if I misinterpereted. If this was truly for curiosity and learning, then I misread the intent.

"so, please, be nice to us, were tree-hugging-hippie-liberals like y'all, so just hug us. "
I'm sincerely trying to, whether you believe that or not. Perhaps if someone could tell me why exactly Pat Robertson or Chimpy McCokespoon aren't "real christians", I might be better able to stop,as you say, broad-brushing all christians.

The sad thing is, they probably are Christians in the terms that they believe in Christ as their personal savior. Perhaps the better question to ask is "Why don't many Christians follow their own tenents and beliefs?" Here, I can join you in bashing Chimpy and co. :-)

[beam me up scottie]

54. One of the reasons I would like to know

is because I hear many christians claiming that bad people aren't really christians because they're not (insert reason here).

But to an atheist, this is an insult.

It's like saying only good people can be one of you and the bad ones are obviously (or maybe not so obviously to a christian) atheists.

We don't do that with rotten people who are atheists-but, as atheists, we don't feel responsible for what Stalin did.

Do christians claim people like Hitler and * aren't christian because they (maybe because they cannot separate their faith from themselves) feel they would be partially responsible for their deeds?

That's what I don't get.

[Az]

55. I think its the twisting they percieve in the others

The ideas expressed by the others claiming to be Christians are so alien to them that they cannot comprehend that they draw their faith from the same source. There is a cognititive disconnect. The only explanation they can fathom is that the person must be so full of hate that they rely on that more than they rely on Jesus and wind up twisting his words to fit their hatred.

But thats simply not true. Ok, sometimes its true. But I have met far to many individuals that truly believe they are acting according to what Jesus/God taught. They draw their ideas of good and evil from the concrete examples they believe the bible contains.

The story of the blind men trying to describe an elephant comes to mind. There are many ways to percieve the teachings of any large work. And the bible certainly could have done with an editor. Its little wonder there are so many different views of it.

[beam me up scottie]

56. But they will lose their religion

by not realizing that the haters are a threat from within.

By placing the talibornagains in our camp, they further cripple the atheists who are their allies, and give the zealots the leverage they need to control the kingdom.

At least, that's how I see it.

The meme that christianity is under attack from godless liberals feeds on denial.

[Az]

57. Its a gradient

As you approach the extremes the opposition seems increasingly alien and threatening. Thus the religious right lumps everything they percieve as a threat into the godless camp. Can't get much more threatening that a bunch of godless heathens trying to destroy their beliefs.

And the interesting thing is they see the liberal Christians as godless as well. It's the whole "You never knew me" aspect of Christianity. They argue that they have the right Jesus, the one with the sword, and claim that the liberals are worshipping a corrupted image of Jesus.

I am often reminded of a story about antrhopoligists trying to find a canabalistic tribe to study. They found all sorts of claims of various tribes being canabalistic. But it was always some other tribe. When they got to each tribe indicated they would say it was some other tribe.

[beam me up scottie]

58. I realize that the zealots view

liberal christians as a threat, but I see them trying to recruit the libs by claiming we are taking god out of their lives.

It's a scare tactic but it's effective if people are uninformed.

If they believe the fundamentalists are not really christians, does that belief make the fundies stronger?

[Az]

60. Certainty is always emotionally stronger

We offer doubt and uncertainty. We have a lousy sales pitch. Join our side and have to deal with all the stress and harsh reality of the world without the strong firm guidance of an all knowing benevalent father figure.

[Brentos]

63. Regarding Christians on other Christians

One of the hardest (and easiest) tenant of the faith is what gets many Christians into trouble.

Super-short-non-explanatory version: To be saved one only has to believe that Christ is the savior (or, my reading of the text, on has to only not deny Christ after knowing him) to be saved. This really pisses many people off, because they want to be able to control their destiny. They want to earn credits to Heaven, convert heathens and make the creator happy, they want to do good works to help them get a better spot on the Heaven-train. Jesus' parable of the day-laborer (wrong name, I think) shows that no matter how much effort/time we put into it, we all get the same wages. So, regarding Hitler and shrub-boy, yeah, they could both be Christians and be saved if they truly believed or didn't actively dis-believe. Painful, we may not like it, but that is what the text shows. Maybe this is why I am tolerant of other beliefes (unlike Dobsons, et al) is that I don't judge any one else, I just want to learn, explore, and share my wisdom and knowledge, as then I can learn, explore, and gather wisdom and knowledge from others, as there is no way that I have more of any of those gifts then those around me.

[Maat]

68. Well-said.

And I'm not a Christian. I'm a Religious Scientist.

We need to discuss things respectfully; I certainly do not want any member of the Religious Left (Religious Progressives) to be discouraged from posting here.

By the way, these neat DU Groups are nice: Liberal Christians Group and Seekers on Unique Paths Group; you do have to have a donor star, however.

[JerseygirlCT]

24. I'd say the simplest answer would be found

in actions, not words.

[FM Arouet666]

59. Good question.

In matters of gawd, you can never be sure who is the "true" believer. Liberal christians, conservative christians, both claim to be the true believers. For a morally absolute philosophy, christianity certainly has a high degree of moral variability.

I don't see many conservative atheists, lacking in conservative evolutionists, sparse Conservative skeptics, yep, an interesting phenomena.