Labour Scraps Doctors' Apprenticeships
News2 mins ago
Christians
92 Answers
There is no concrete evidence of the resurrection of Jesus - in fact it's possible that he didn't die on the cross - so why do you believe?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
That's quite a misrepresentation/misunderstanding of what I actually wrote, Octavius!
Your rights as a Christian (and let's be clear that there are *no* distinct legal rights accrued as a result of being a Christian) re: Jerry Springer are the same as mine. I assume here that your television set has alternative channels and an off switch and that you are not coerced into attending shows at the local theatre against your will. You are therefore entitled not to watch or not go, as you please. Whether you think JStO is insipid is completely irrelevant. Everyone is free to dislike JStO as much as they please. They're even free to write letters and tell me it's rubbish/offensive or whatever (as long as you do not actually lie about it, which the Christian Voice-led campaign did). That does not give them the right to stop me determining my own feelings on the matter (and, as it happens, I think it's insipid too) by carrying out campaigns of intimidation of theatres and audiences.
Moreover, you've completely misunderstand the point of the "No True Scotsman" argument. I haven't argued you're not a Christian because you haven't done X, Y and Z, I've argued that just because an individual (you) hasn't done X,Y and Z, and that individual is a Christian, it doesn't logically follow that Christians plural have not done those things and done so as a direct consequence of their Christianity.
Theland, on the other hand, is forever attempting to argue that you can dissassociate unpleasant actions of individuals and Christianity, even if those individuals claim to be motivated by their Christianity. I say you cannot. Even if they have misunderstood or misrepresented the message of Christianity, it remains a motivating factor for their behaviour.
Your rights as a Christian (and let's be clear that there are *no* distinct legal rights accrued as a result of being a Christian) re: Jerry Springer are the same as mine. I assume here that your television set has alternative channels and an off switch and that you are not coerced into attending shows at the local theatre against your will. You are therefore entitled not to watch or not go, as you please. Whether you think JStO is insipid is completely irrelevant. Everyone is free to dislike JStO as much as they please. They're even free to write letters and tell me it's rubbish/offensive or whatever (as long as you do not actually lie about it, which the Christian Voice-led campaign did). That does not give them the right to stop me determining my own feelings on the matter (and, as it happens, I think it's insipid too) by carrying out campaigns of intimidation of theatres and audiences.
Moreover, you've completely misunderstand the point of the "No True Scotsman" argument. I haven't argued you're not a Christian because you haven't done X, Y and Z, I've argued that just because an individual (you) hasn't done X,Y and Z, and that individual is a Christian, it doesn't logically follow that Christians plural have not done those things and done so as a direct consequence of their Christianity.
Theland, on the other hand, is forever attempting to argue that you can dissassociate unpleasant actions of individuals and Christianity, even if those individuals claim to be motivated by their Christianity. I say you cannot. Even if they have misunderstood or misrepresented the message of Christianity, it remains a motivating factor for their behaviour.
Naomi, mea culpa, my choice of words today has been erroneous. Work keeps getting in the way. I have seen several of your Qs and As and they just appear to constantly assert that Christianity and Christians (in the global sense) are iniquitous.
Waldo, I agree that if someone is abhorrent to some else in the name of their god, this is unacceptable. Although I am a Christian, I am also a balanced humanitarian. And despite what people say � this is possible.
Re, the original question. I did contribute to that and agreed that many Christians don�t believe it happened as written or indeed at all. Somebody somewhere veered off down a well trodden path, and unfortunately this made me mirror this by being myself a tedious bore. I shall forcibly remove myself from your thread.
Waldo, I agree that if someone is abhorrent to some else in the name of their god, this is unacceptable. Although I am a Christian, I am also a balanced humanitarian. And despite what people say � this is possible.
Re, the original question. I did contribute to that and agreed that many Christians don�t believe it happened as written or indeed at all. Somebody somewhere veered off down a well trodden path, and unfortunately this made me mirror this by being myself a tedious bore. I shall forcibly remove myself from your thread.
The issue for me is simply that you have to separate the message of Christianity from those people who claim to be Christians but act in an unchristian way. It's as simple as that.
"What Would Jesus Do?"
In any situation, that is the yardstick for Christians, and what he wouldn't do, would be to confuse the sin and the sinner.
"What Would Jesus Do?"
In any situation, that is the yardstick for Christians, and what he wouldn't do, would be to confuse the sin and the sinner.
There are major schisms between churches that call themselves Christian. They all interpret the Bible differently, and add to it or subtract from it. I personally would not defend their institutional dogma. I believe it is for each individual to make up their own minds and then, if they feel it is right, join a church or an assembly, and then pursue their relationship with God.
It is not for me to judge them. I do however, see some of these istitutions deviate from the Bible, and the Bible itself judges them. The institutions that is.
It is not for me to judge them. I do however, see some of these istitutions deviate from the Bible, and the Bible itself judges them. The institutions that is.
Naomi - Yes, I often wonder if I am wrong on certain dogmas and beliefs. I probably am. However, my integrity is in tact, even if I'm barking up the wrong tree, and I think god will judge me on that. Or rather, I hope He doesn't judge me, but pours out his grace andd forgives me. That's better than justice.
"The issue for me is simply that you have to separate the message of Christianity from those people who claim to be Christians but act in an unchristian way. It's as simple as that.
"What Would Jesus Do?"
In any situation, that is the yardstick for Christians, and what he wouldn't do, would be to confuse the sin and the sinner."
To a small extent, I see your point. Perhaps an analogy could be whether British yobs on the rampage on the Costa Del Sol are British? You can see why people would want to say they're not, but it doesn't alter the fact that they are, and that we have a particular problem with this sort of behavoiur that other nations don't seem to suffer from, ergo their Britishness is a defining factor in their yobbish behaviour, regardless of how much you or I find the notion of being associated with such prats repugnant.
By your own definition, you're all sinners and need to be saved, therefore it's a bit blummin' rich to start dissassociating from people who commit sins, just because it makes the religion look bad, and that must surely go doubly when their sins are directly occasioned by that religion.
"What Would Jesus Do?"
In any situation, that is the yardstick for Christians, and what he wouldn't do, would be to confuse the sin and the sinner."
To a small extent, I see your point. Perhaps an analogy could be whether British yobs on the rampage on the Costa Del Sol are British? You can see why people would want to say they're not, but it doesn't alter the fact that they are, and that we have a particular problem with this sort of behavoiur that other nations don't seem to suffer from, ergo their Britishness is a defining factor in their yobbish behaviour, regardless of how much you or I find the notion of being associated with such prats repugnant.
By your own definition, you're all sinners and need to be saved, therefore it's a bit blummin' rich to start dissassociating from people who commit sins, just because it makes the religion look bad, and that must surely go doubly when their sins are directly occasioned by that religion.
Fine. So how do you get around those who do things in the belief that it is sanctioned by God?
How, for example, do you suggest we categorise Christians who gay bash? The Bible says homosexuals should be killed. God personally commands it. Have the gay-bashers sinned? Only by not going far enough, according to the Bible!
How, for example, do you suggest we categorise Christians who gay bash? The Bible says homosexuals should be killed. God personally commands it. Have the gay-bashers sinned? Only by not going far enough, according to the Bible!
Latest Posts
Good Morning Boxing Day Birds!
ChatterBank10 mins ago
How it Works29 mins ago
Road rules32 mins ago
Am I Right To Be Feeling This Way?
Family Life37 mins ago
