Atheist tells a minister they are not a Christian

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your objections are nothing short of ludicrous and it shall be noted how you have completely avoided the part on why simple belief is never a good definition, this naturally answers the question marked with an asterisk. i need comment no further.

You pass? Okay, fine with me. The definition of mine stands until a better one is found.
I feel that you avoid the whole question, but, as said, fine with me.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You pass? Okay, fine with me. The definition of mine stands until a better one is found.
I feel that you avoid the whole question, but, as said, fine with me.

no i never avoided and i did not pass, i provided a full explanation of why belief is never a good definition of anything, why you fail to understand that and instead make petty and irrelevant remarks i do not know. if you are interested in a serious discussion of why belief is not enough you can make reference to my comments they are there for all to see.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i never avoided and i did not pass, i provided a full explanation of why belief is never a good definition of anything, why you fail to understand that and instead make petty and irrelevant remarks i do not know. if you are interested in a serious discussion of why belief is not enough you can make reference to my comments they are there for all to see.

A full explanation, yes, but not undebatable explanation, and that's what we are doing here, debating.

If I fail to understand your definition (according to you), then your definition is not clear. I pointed that out to you, and you didn't like that. I try to hae a serious discussion with you, but you don't want that. You pout your mouth and avoid further debate.

It's okay that you avoid further debate. The result is that the matter just hangs in the midair. You don't care, and you will not learn anything about the matter. Fine. Fundamentalistic.

I learn from you, a lot. As an ambassador of the JW cult I learn a lot about JW. Do you learn anything of our debate? Par example that there are other views too? That there are many ways to see the same thing? No? Okay. Then I learnt something new abut JW again. But that I already knew.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
A full explanation, yes, but not undebatable explanation, and that's what we are doing here, debating.

If I fail to understand your definition (according to you), then your definition is not clear. I pointed that out to you, and you didn't like that. I try to hae a serious discussion with you, but you don't want that. You pout your mouth and avoid furt e same thing? No? Okay. Then I learnt something new abut JW again. But that I already knew.

(Proverbs 20:3) It is a glory for a man to desist from disputing, but everyone foolish will burst out . . .

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(Proverbs 20:3) It is a glory for a man to desist from disputing, but everyone foolish will burst out . . .

You certainly know how to use the bible as a weapon... That's an annoying behaviour.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You certainly know how to use the bible as a weapon... That's an annoying behaviour.

(Ecclesiastes 7:9) Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones. 😉

Actually Fabian you make a very valid point, please note this scripture,

(Hebrews 4:12)For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and their marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its not too simplistic, for the definition itself is not dependent upon what interpretations people give of Christ's teachings, nor of whether they accept them in whole or in part, nor whether they adhere to them or not, for all of these are the variable factors in the equation rather than the equation itself. Also it is not without precedent as i ...[text shortened]... isciples, if you have love among yourselves. . .

the defining mark of true Christianity.[/b]

Fine. But understand your definition is impractical. Every Christian church claims to follow Jesus' teaching and yet there are huge discrepancies between all of them. You might define a Christian as someone who follows the teachings of Christ but there are huge epistemological obstacles in that definition -- about what teachings and how they are interpreted. A definition has been put forward but how it could be used as a practical means to identify Christians is unknown. You may say that love is integral -- but how that love is interpreted and practiced is another matter.

The reason I insist of the importance of baptism is that this has historically been the clinching definition????? well history is about to change, for it is well known that during the rule of Ferdinand and Isabella in the 1400s in catholic Spain during the reacquisition of towns many Jews and Muslims converted through baptism under a pretence and continued to carry on their own faiths in secret, are we to assume that they were Christian by virtue of their baptism? hardly!

I never said that baptism alone makes someone a Christian. As I said earlier, baptism, the creed, sacramental life, the Scriptures, certain moral norms, all distinguish someone as a Christian. Baptism is for Catholics necessary but not sufficient. Also, by baptism, I do not just mean baptism by water but also baptism by desire and martyrdom. The Church has always recognised that catechumens (studying to be baptised) and martyrs dying for the Catholic faith would receive all grace of baptism if they died before sacramental baptism could be received.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But that is simply not the case. People frequently identify themselves by terms the decidedly do not fit their actual description and they should not be given the prerogative to redefine the terms. In fact it is often done for the express purpose of deception.

For example, if a politician calls himself a democrat, but does not believe in democracy, sho tion, and I might effectively say that by simply saying "you are not really Christian".

But that is simply not the case. People frequently identify themselves by terms the decidedly do not fit their actual description and they should not be given the prerogative to redefine the terms. In fact it is often done for the express purpose of deception.

It is not the prerogative to redefine words; it is the prerogative to mean what you want to mean. To some extent, the relationship between words and their meanings has to be stable. This is how communication occurs. The listener assumes that normative meaning behind the word is what the speaker intends. I say 'democracy' and you think 'right to elect political leaders'. So it is sensible that I use words as they are typically understood, otherwise I will be misunderstood. However, this should not forget the point that language is fundamentally used to express the speaker's mind and so the listener has to accommodate the possibility of nuance, ambiguity or even irony. If a listener were only interested in how words were normatively understood, and not in what the listener may mean in that context, he would make a very poor conversant.

For example, if a politician calls himself a democrat, but does not believe in democracy, should we give him the prerogative to so redefine the term? If someone gives himself the title "King", or "Your honor" should we give them the prerogative?

I don't think you really understand my point. This is not about the prerogative to redefine words. I am not arguing that a politician should have the power to alter dictionaries and erase prior meanings. I am saying that a person has the right to mean what he wants and it is silly to dictate to him what he ought to mean. If a politician identified as a democrat and did not believe in democracy, you would have to ask what he means by 'democrat'. If he means democrat in the sense of 'supports democracy as it is generally understood', you can tell him the label does not apply to him; if by democrat he means something subtly different as in 'supports the interests of all people', you might disagree about the reason for calling him a democrat but you cannot argue with him -- you cannot deny what he meant.

If someone thinks that being called Buddhist is cool, but they don't know the first thing about Buddhism, are we wrong to tell them they are not actually Buddhists? Or does their announcement that they are Buddhist instantly give them more right to decide what the word should mean than us?

Again, I am not saying anyone has 'more rights' than anyone else. I have the right to call myself a Buddhist; you have the right to call yourself a Buddhist. Obviously we would mean radically different things and some might question our reasons for identifying as Buddhists. But you cannot tell me what I mean by Buddhist and I cannot tell you what you mean by Buddhist. I am not advocating a situation in which an ignoramus could appoint himself the supreme arbiter of what constitutes Buddhism; I am saying that a person, no matter how much of an ignoramus, would have the right to use the label 'Buddhist' as he wants it to mean.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again, I am not saying anyone has 'more rights' than anyone else. I have the right to call myself a Buddhist; you have the right to call yourself a Buddhist. Obviously we would mean radically different things and some might question our reasons for identifying as Buddhists. But you cannot tell me what I mean by Buddhist and I cannot tell you what you mean b ...[text shortened]... n ignoramus, would have the right to use the label 'Buddhist' as he wants it to mean.

I think I am now understanding your point. However, I still see no problem with me coming along and saying "you are not a Buddhist". I am not denying you your personal right to call yourself a Buddhist but rather depending on context I could be:
1. pointing out that you do not fit the commonly held meaning of the word.
or
2. I may be using your own stated definition an pointing out that you do fit it.

Maybe my error was to not actually read the article, so I don't know the exact context. I was only arguing that it is not improper in certain circumstances to tell someone they are not Christian even when they apply the label to themselves and further arguing against your claim:
"Whatever constitutes Christianity however can only be worked out among people who claim that identity; it is the people who use that label who reserve the right to define it."
Which I still dispute and which I think you have not explained away so far.
Though I realise that people may reserve the right to use a label such as 'Christian', 'Buddhist' or 'Democrat' I totally disagree that ' it is the people who use that label who reserve the right to define it.' where 'the people who use the label' means those who identify themselves with the label.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually Fabian you make a very valid point, please note this scripture,

So when I say "bloody bible", then I'm more correct than I thought.
Christianity and its followers are certainly as violent as you say. (*shrug*) I'm glad that I'm not christian the way you are.

I rarely read your refs. I want to know *your* thoughts, not a copy and pasted text from some other writer's thoughts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think I am now understanding your point. However, I still see no problem with me coming along and saying "you are not a Buddhist". I am not denying you your personal right to call yourself a Buddhist but rather depending on context I could be:
1. pointing out that you do not fit the commonly held meaning of the word.
or
2. I may be using your own sta ...[text shortened]... the people who use the label' means those who identify themselves with the label.

1. pointing out that you do not fit the commonly held meaning of the word.
or
2. I may be using your own stated definition an pointing out that you do fit it.

Yes, you may do either. You may say that my definition of 'Buddhist' does not accord with its usual sense and you may say that I do not even fit my definition. I have never denied that. So long as you do not take the common sense of the word and then impose that on my use of it, then there is no issue.

Maybe my error was to not actually read the article, so I don't know the exact context.

Neither did I. I had Richard Dawkins in mind who had said that Pat Robinson was a true Christian. In fact, there are good scriptural reasons to reject the idea of divine retribution of the wicked. Job suffers evil because he was good; Jesus says that evil will befall the good and the wicked. My main problem with Richard Dawkins is that he cannot define what anyone else means when they use the word 'Christian'.

Though I realise that people may reserve the right to use a label such as 'Christian', 'Buddhist' or 'Democrat' I totally disagree that ' it is the people who use that label who reserve the right to define it.' where 'the people who use the label' means those who identify themselves with the label.

Well, all I mean is that a person who uses that label has the right to define what he means by it. This is his own self-determination. I did not mean however that the total of Christian peopl own some kind of linguistic right over the word and so can forbid others from using it.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So when I say "bloody bible", then I'm more correct than I thought.
Christianity and its followers are certainly as violent as you say. (*shrug*) I'm glad that I'm not christian the way you are.

I rarely read your refs. I want to know *your* thoughts, not a copy and pasted text from some other writer's thoughts.

ummm its used in a metaphorical sense, i thought that was obvious from the context, . . . . apparently not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ummm its used in a metaphorical sense, i thought that was obvious from the context, . . . . apparently not.

Still, you're using the bible as a weapon. I don't think christ would've liked this. It's not according to the practice of Jesus. Therefore you are not a christian. (According to your own definition of a cristian.)

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Still, you're using the bible as a weapon. I don't think christ would've liked this. It's not according to the practice of Jesus. Therefore you are not a christian. (According to your own definition of a cristian.)

sigh,

(Matthew 4:1-11) . . .Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil.  After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, then he felt hungry.  Also, the Tempter came and said to him: “If you are a son of God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread.”  But in reply he said: “It is written, ‘Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth.’”  Then the Devil took him along into the holy city, and he stationed him upon the battlement of the temple  and said to him: “If you are a son of God, hurl yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels a charge concerning you, and they will carry you on their hands, that you may at no time strike your foot against a stone.’”  Jesus said to him: “Again it is written, ‘You must not put Jehovah your God to the test.’”  Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory,  and he said to him: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.”  Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”  Then the Devil left him, and, look! angels came and began to minister to him.

clearly Christ used Gods word to defend himself from attack.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh,

(Matthew 4:1-11) . . .Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil.  After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, then he felt hungry.  Also, the Tempter came and said to him: “If you are a son of God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread.”  But in reply he said: “[b]It is written, ‘Man m ...[text shortened]... me and began to minister to him.

clearly Christ used Gods word to defend himself from attack.[/b]

(1) You're using a fake bible version, not even a correct translation.
(2) Don't use Jesus to sanction your bad unchristian behaviour. It's not christian practice.
(3) I told you, it's easy to paste and copy without even read it yourself.
(4) What has this to do with the fact that you've proven yourself unchristian by your own definition?