@josephw
Here's a question.
If an individual is a habitual liar, fornicator, adulterer, murderer, theif or is practicing, as a lifestyle, a grossly immoral lifestyle not consistent with the Bible's clear definition of what that is, and that individual claims to be a Christian, what are you going to think?
Obviously you're going to have grave doubts about the authenticity of that individual's claim.
Is that not correct?
Furthermore, if an individual categorizes all Christians into the same lump, and makes the generalization that all Christians must be like the individual that claims to be a Christian, but lives a life not consistent with the Bible's terms and conditions, what do you call that type of generalization?
I find it interesting that you failed to identify that fallacy in the OP.
Shame on you. Where's your integrity when you give a pass on such gross mischaracterizations?
@josephw saidMatthew 7:15-18
To you it is because you don't understand what Christianity is about.
By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
Why does Christianity bear such bad fruit? "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit". If so, explain white Christianity.
Notice Christians are more bothered by pointing out the racism in white Christianity than the actual racism it possesses.
@josephw saidNo one is doing this.
If an individual categorizes all Christians into the same lump, and makes the generalization that all Christians must be like the individual that claims to be a Christian, but lives a life not consistent with the Bible's terms and conditions, what do you call that type of generalization?
@fmf saidI don't have a problem with your definition.
Both you and Romans1009/PB1002 have been suggesting that "Christianity" is ONLY defined by its ideology. That's the petri dish. I am suggesting that "Christianity" is defined by what its adherents think and do once the ideology is taken from the petri dish and applied in the real world.
But you are wrong to suggest that I define Christianity ONLY by its ideology.
First comes doctrine, then comes adherence.
If Christianity is not practical, then it is as Paul says, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."
@josephw said"Christianity" is in part defined by your behaviour here, especially when it is in parallel with you posting scripture, the posting of which offers no concrete evidence of what you really believe or how you actually live your life away from here.
I don't have a problem with your definition.
But you are wrong to suggest that I define Christianity ONLY by its ideology.
First comes doctrine, then comes adherence.
Your behaviour and character and your mindmap and your integrity as a poster, here, on the other hand, it all offers some concrete evidence of one aspect of the way you walk the Christian walk and, therefore all that you say and do forms part of a huge mosaic type definition of "Christianity".
@josephw saidNot at all. I am quoting you verbatim. And I am pointing out that it is a strawman.
You're missing the point, and squirming.
If an individual categorizes all Christians into the same lump, and makes the generalization that all Christians must be like the individual that claims to be a Christian, but lives a life not consistent with the Bible's terms and conditions, what do you call that type of generalization?
No one is doing this.
Suggesting that someone is, and then pretending that I am missing your point, is YOU squirming.
You are having a low-integrity moment.
@FMF
Points the finger and does no wrong.
Part and parcel of the attitude of someone that considers them self superior to others in every way, and that according to your own confession.
So quick to judge based on your own appraisal of yourself.
Is that what defines a humanist self labeled gnostic-atheist?
Is that how your moral code works out in the practical?
@josephw saidOh dear, some self-pitying drivel from you. Have you bailed out then?
Points the finger and does no wrong.
Part and parcel of the attitude of someone that considers them self superior to others in every way, and that according to your own confession.
So quick to judge based on your own appraisal of yourself.
Is that what defines a humanist self labeled gnostic-atheist?
Is that how your moral code works out in the practical?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidFaith isn't evidence. No one said it was, so why be trite with it?
Abba or Cher?
I'll save you some time. You have no tangible evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. What you do have is faith.
That's fine, but don't wrap it up as evidence.
The tangible evidence is the eyewitness account given in the infallible record of God's Word.
That is the only evidence you'll get, and it's the only evidence you need.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Faith is not blind. Faith is tangible because the object of faith is real and tangible, and there's ample evidence for it. Is God faking His existence?
What can be blind is the heart and mind.