Originally posted by robbie carrobie
But this was my thought, notice what I said, if it can be demonstrated that someone is not living up to Christian requirements or standards then surely its possible to say that they are or are not a true Christian.

By that same method, you can prove Solomon was never a"true" believer. That's why doing so isn't valid.

Originally posted by vivify
By that same method, you can prove Solomon was never a"true" believer. That's why doing so isn't valid.

No this is not an equivalent, the term true believer is a much more broad and all encompassing term and the tenets of Christianity are by comparison readily defined and more narrow. Also it could be demonstrated that Solomon was a true believer but laterally lapsed, all one has to do is examine his actions or what we know of them.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And the point is that there is no standardised "Christian Requirements" to compare them to.

The tenets of Christianity are readily defined, easily accessible are are not difficult to understand.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The tenets of Christianity are readily defined, easily accessible are are not difficult to understand.

Of course. And that is why there are hundreds of sects and denominations who have liked to spend a good portion of their time throughout history killing each other.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No this is not an equivalent, the term true believer is a much more broad and all encompassing term and the tenets of Christianity are by comparison readily defined and more narrow. Also it could be demonstrated that Solomon was a true believer but laterally lapsed, all one has to do is examine his actions or what we know of them.

The standards of OT Jews are far from "narrow". Do you have any idea how many strict laws and traditions they were required to keep?

As far as "laterally lapsed", you could say the same for any of these "evil men" Suzianne refered to.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Of course. And that is why there are hundreds of sects and denominations who have liked to spend a good portion of their time throughout history killing each other.

On that note, here is a link to a page with a pretty detailed tree of the world's religions.

http://funki.com.ua/ru/portfolio/lab/world-religions-tree/

Use it by pressing the + button in the upper left enough times to see the text labels, then pan around with your cursor in the graphic.

Christian denominations are on the right side.

Originally posted by vivify
The standards of OT Jews are far from "narrow". Do you have any idea how many strict laws and traditions they were required to keep?

As far as "laterally lapsed", you could say the same for any of these "evil men" Suzianne refered to.

but you did not say a true Jew, but a true believer which could equally be applicable to a Muslim or a Hindu.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Of course. And that is why there are hundreds of sects and denominations who have liked to spend a good portion of their time throughout history killing each other.

This is an excellent example, let us test the premise,

you must love your neighbor as yourself - Jesus Christ

Now we can use this principle to discern whether the actions of those individuals who engaged in this killing can lead us to some consensus of whether they were true Christians or not because if they were true Christians they would apply the teachings of Jesus, teachings like the above.

On this basis then its perfectly reasonable to conclude that in all likelihood they were not behaving in a manner as described by Jesus, in fact they were engaging in behavior diametrically opposed to that which Jesus taught for logically you cannot be killing persons and demonstrating love for them at the same time. Therefore those persons who engaged in these killings were not true Christians, is it not the case?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
but you did not say a true Jew, but a true believer which could equally be applicable to a Muslim or a Hindu.

This thread concerns the Christian bible, in a forum where most theists are Christian. In context, "believer" can only mean a believer in the Christian god.

Solomon faltered as both a Jew and a believer in the Christian god, by worhipping other deities; yet, the bible says he was at one time, "true" as both a believer and a Jew. So either way, this shows that whether you want to use "true Jew" or "true believer", it doesn't change the fallacious nature of the "no true Christian" argument used by Suzianne.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is an excellent example, let us test the premise,

you must love your neighbor as yourself - Jesus Christ

Now we can use this principle to discern whether the actions of those individuals who engaged in this killing can lead us to some consensus of whether they were true Christians or not because if they were true Christians they would app ...[text shortened]... refore those persons who engaged in these killings were not true Christians, is it not the case?

Exodus 22

18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Matthew 5

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Heaven and Earth have not passed.
The old laws thus still apply.
The old laws include "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
Thus there are circumstances in which it must be OK to kill people.
Thus your argument fails.


The bible is the big book of multiple choice.

Heck, you can't all agree on the same bible. I just used the King James Version, which do you use? [rhetorical]

The bible is mutually contradictory, plus it doesn't have a glossary of definitions.

What is meant by 'neighbour'? [also rhetorical]


No, there is no one gold standard of what it means to be a Christian that everyone can agree on.

It's why you all argue so much.

Originally posted by vivify
This thread concerns the Christian bible, in a forum where most theists are Christian. In context, "believer" can only mean a believer in the Christian god.

Solomon faltered as both a Jew and a believer in the Christian god, by worhipping other deities; yet, the bible says he was at one time, "true" as both a believer and a Jew. So either way, this s ...[text shortened]... ", it doesn't change the fallacious nature of the "no true Christian" argument used by Suzianne.

I am not defending any argument by Wussianne, I am stating that if you look at the precepts and tenets of a religion you can determine who is following them and who is not so as to make a valid and reasonable evaluation and once again your comparison is unsound because one is a Jew by ethnicity and one a Christian by adoption of the teachings of Jesus Christ, as soon as you fail to adhere to those teaching you are no longer a Christian. That one may have been a Christian at one time has no bearing on this and its fair to say and maybe even capable of being doctrinally established that you were never a 'true Christian'

Originally posted by googlefudge
Exodus 22

18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Matthew 5

[quote]5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, b ...[text shortened]... f what it means to be a Christian that everyone can agree on.

It's why you all argue so much.

I am not sure what your objection is here?

Have you never heard of Hyperbole? Jesus used it quite a lot, camels through the eyes of needles etc

Its fairly easy to demonstrate that the Mosiac law is no longer binding upon Christians in practice and no there may not be any circumstance in which its permissible for a Christian to take life, infact plenty of people have been willing to die for a principle.

There is no failure hear, the matter is crystal clear.

I use any Bible in fact, its certainly of benefit to make a comparison of texts so as to get a valid consensus on a particular verse, both in translation and in the original language, its not that difficult.

Jesus gave a rather excellent parable about a good Samaritan that acted in a neighborly way.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not sure what your objection is here?

Have you never heard of Hyperbole? Jesus used it quite a lot, camels through the eyes of needles etc

Its fairly easy to demonstrate that the Mosiac law is no longer binding upon Christians in practice and no there may not be any circumstance in which its permissible for a Christian to take life, infa ...[text shortened]...

Jesus gave a rather excellent parable about a good Samaritan that acted in a neighborly way.

I'm sorry but it's not crystal clear.

That is why there are hundreds of dissenting denominations and sects and
different bibles and different translations of different books.

People have been arguing about this stuff for 2kyrs and only become more
disparate with time.

You cannot argue that it's crystal clear and not open to interpretation and
be taken seriously.

I am not going to give your interpretation any more weight than the interpretation
of any other group.

There is no one objective set of criteria for determining if someone is a 'true Christian'
or not.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I'm sorry but it's not crystal clear.

That is why there are hundreds of dissenting denominations and sects and
different bibles and different translations of different books.

People have been arguing about this stuff for 2kyrs and only become more
disparate with time.

You cannot argue that it's crystal clear and not open to interpretation an ...[text shortened]... e is no one objective set of criteria for determining if someone is a 'true Christian'
or not.

Yes its crystal clear, denominations arise because of individuals, for example Luther or Calvin. That there are different Bibles of translations is not a concern in itself and one can easily examine a translation as to its veracity and I disagree, one can easily examine an action and see if the person performing that act is acting in harmony with Christian principles and I will provide an example.

Jesus sated, 'you will know you are my disciples if you have love among yourselves'. What about all those professed Christians who killed each other in two world wars, did they have love among themselves, NO, they were shooting and bombing each other and we can therefore make a valid and reasonable estimation that they were not adhering to Christs teachings and were not as a consequence, true Christians.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not defending any argument by Wussianne, I am stating that if you look at the precepts and tenets of a religion you can determine who is following them and who is not so as to make a valid and reasonable evaluation and once again your comparison is unsound because one is a Jew by ethnicity and one a Christian by adoption of the teachings of Jesu ...[text shortened]... y and maybe even capable of being doctrinally established that you were never a 'true Christian'

"As soon as you fail to adhere" to those teachings, you're "no longer a Christian"? You do realize that's contrary to what the bible says, right? So if a Christian man lusts after another man's wife, and is killed in a car accident soon after, he'll go to hell because he was "no longer a christian" during that moment of weakness?

The bible is full of passages that talk about what believers should do if they fail at being Christians (the Prodigal Son is a famous example), so obviously, you're wrong.