Continuation topic: How Xianity is determined?

[Ray Martinez]

In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.

In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.

Ray

[jillery]

You are correct that mass murder is a sin. I even accept for
argument's sake that having an ax to grind is a sin. And as sins,
they show that people who commit these sins are not following Christ.
Too bad there are so many other sins everybody does every day. Based
on that, nobody can legitimately claim Christianity, and especially
not those who say they don't sin.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 11:15:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.

NOPE! That is NOT what Sean has argued. Sean has argued that a Christian is any person who BELIEVES in the fundamental fact-claims of Christianity (which are pretty neatly laid out in the Apostles Creed).

If you disagree with this assessment Ray, please tell me what you would have us label people who believe IN Christianity, but who fail to follow Christ the way you thing they should. (Hint: the answer is definitely not atheist, since atheists do NOT believe IN Christianity, by definition.)

Sean has further argued that there is no absolute proof that can establish what is in another person's heart and mind. However, barring evidence to the contrary, there is no especial reason to DOUBT a person's self-report of their own beliefs.

Finally, Sean have argued that sinful behavior -- even EXTREMELY sinful behavior -- is not, in and of itself -- compelling evidence to the contrary of a person's self-report. I make this claim on the basis that I was once a believing Christian, and I DID, while being a believing Christian, sometimes behave in ways that the Christian Church would deem sinful. So I can state affirmatively that such a thing is indeed very much possible.

>
> In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.

Actually, the Bible never defines the word "Christian." So it certainly never defines it as "following Christ."

And again: I reject your "following Christ" definition of Christianity, in that it excludes sinners, which is in direct contradiction to Christian teachings. All Christians are sinners. People are Christians and sinners AT THE SAME TIME, by the teaching of Christianity itself.

>
> Ray

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting argumets, I'm sure, for the religiously inclined.

But what the hell has this to do with the attitude of fundamentalists
to evolution?

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:25:11 +0100, joecummin...@gmail.com
wrote:

I don't mind our Ray having a religious rant - in fact, more power to
his elbow, or vocal chords, or his typing finger or whatever.

But he's consistently shown that his sceintific knowledge is zero,
zilch.

I've a suggestion to make to Ray, Why doesn't he open his own
newsgroup? Hs friends (?) would be happy to join him there, and when
the unlikely event occurs of Ray making a scientific point, he could
always post something here in T.O.

I'd like to invite people to suggest names for Ray's newsgroup.

Now, Ray, kneel and take divine inspiration on this.

Stranger thing have happened at sea.


Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[Bill Rogers]

Ray, I'd say that the evidentiary standard for believing that someone is a Christian is their profession of faith. I have no way to evaluate whether someone is sincere. It is obvious that people who are sincere Christians sin nonetheless. You've said as much. You've even said that it is faith, not works, that determines whether someone is saved.

In addition, what I might consider mass murder, ie the fire bombing of Dresden or the genocide of the Amalekites, you, a Christian, consider justified vengeance. So you, who certainly claim to be a Christian, support what I consider to be atrocities. So, if I were to judge you on that score, I'd conclude that you were not a Christian. And the same situation will arise in many cases simply because people disagree about what actions the Bible considers moral and which not.

Therefore, the simplest approach is simply to assume that people are sincere when they claim to be Christians. They might be faking it, of course, but there's no way to know. And, as I've said, if I applied a moral test to you in light of Jesus' teaching, you would fail, and I'd conclude you were not a Christian. So I think the easiest approach is just to take you, and anyone else, at their word about what they believe.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.

This seems to have been on one of the OT threads that I did not follow,
but I'm reasonably certain that neither argued this. Which one could say
makes you a liar, which might be a sin - does it follow from this alone
that you aren't a Christian?

Now, my guess is that what they argued was instead that s) it is the
beliefs specified in the Creed that define membership in the Christian
community (rather than any other old belief, or a person's external
actions - sola fide and all that) and b) that since nobody knows better
what you believe than you, a person's verbal ascent to these creeds is
strong, but of course rebuttable evidence for actually holding such a
belief. (rebuttable means the inference can be defeated if there is
strong counter evidence) Which is of course not only theologically
sound, but in line with Christian practice through the ages, from the
public affirmation of the Creed during mass/Holy communion, to the
emphasis countries with a Christian state church like the England put at
various times the "test oaths" to determine heresies.

Indeed, quite often when the christian churches veered away from the
principle that public declaration of faith was a sound way to establish
membership in the Church, brutality followed - that was after all the
trigger for the inquisition: the authorities distrusted the expressed
statements of converted Jews, and tried to find out what the truly"
believed - by tearing them limb from limb.

>
> In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind.

Two rather different issues mixed up here. The "ax to grind" case is
better suited for the argument you try to make. Yes, people sometimes
lie. But we have criteria for determining if this is likely the case.
This includes consistency over time and audiences, reasons to lie/to be
truthful, and yes, also consistency between actions and stated beliefs.
But all of these are in turn defeasible, and you need to evaluate the
totality of the evidence, and its respective strength.

The mass murdered by contrast makes neither epistemological nor
theological sense, especially not for Protestants (for Catholics, the
doctrine of mortal sin complicates the issue a bit, but only a bit)

The theological problems are obvious, and I pointed them out to you
before - at which point I think you essentially agreed, but did not
realize that this is inconsistent with your line of argument. The core
tenet of Christianity is the ubiquity, but also the forgiveness of sin.
Everybody is a sinner, nobody beyond redemption. And in the eyes of God
all sins are equal (one of the more ethically problematic ideas, and the
RCC tried to wriggle out of it, but with little basis in scripture as
far as I can see).

So if you single out mass murder, you are already on theologically shaky
grounds, "impure thoughts" would have worked just as well. And by
undermining the idea that we are all inevitably sinners you undermine
the very foundations of Christianity. At worst, in your analysis nobody
ever was a Christian. At best you get "oscillating Christians": Asleep:
a Christian. Woke up ad had bacon for breakfast: probably a Christian,
but depending if you can weasel out of Mathew 5:18. Starts reading
newspaper, all fine up to page 2 when an image of film star at Oscars
causes impure thoughts, at which point person becomes atheist. Reads on
to sport page and becomes a Christian again, until he reads about salary
of football star and briefly covets it - not a Christian at that point.
and so on and so forth through the day, so yo never know if someone is a
Christian at any given point in time.

The epistemological problems follow from this. "Being a Christian"
becomes a meaningless term that does not match anything in reality, in
particular not the real existing social phenomenon of Christian
churches. You could never say e.g. "how many Christians are there" at
any point in time - could be none, 1 or millions.

Another epistemological problem is that "being a mass murderer" allows
only indirect inferences to what that person believed at the time. I
gave you a number of possible scenarios is another post to which you
never replied. In particular, we can distinguish:

- being a mass murdered but accepting that this is against Christ's
teaching, feeling terribly about it and praying for forgiveness -
definitely a Christian as term is normally understood.

- being a mass murderer, but arguing that an exception consistent with
Christian teaching applies, e.g.: was not real murder but self defense.
You do this all the time yourself, e.g. with your morally reprehensible
argument for the mass killing of civilians and children in the middle
east, because you disapprove of the attitude of their president (in
whose election they had little say). Few Christians would agree with you
that your excuses are sound, and they are indeed redolent of the worst
Christianity had brought forth through the ages - your argument in
particular that it does not matter that children will burn, get their
limbs torn apart and painfully waste away from radiation sickness
because "God will then let them into paradise" reeks of the massacre at
Béziers and the "kill them all, God will find his own". While I and I
guess most Christians, find your ethics repugnant, I accept that you try
to make an argument based on your understanding of the Bible, however
incompetently, and that means I still consider you a Christian, just one
who is very bad at it.

- being a mass murderer and not only saying that there was a legitimate
excuse, but indeed a divine command to do so. In this case it all
depends on how the argument is made, and if there is a genuine attempt
to base it on Scripture, even if I disagree with the interpretation.

- being a mass murderer in open defiance of God, or because you think
there are no consequences. That and only that would mean you have now
adopted a line of thought that is indeed incompatible with being a
Christian.

As others have pointed out, "being bad at being a Christian" and "none
being a Christian" are epistemological (and in Christianity also
theologically) 2 entirely different things

>The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ?

Yup, believing in his divinity etc. It would have been possible to base
the definition on actions, but Christianity chose otherwise, emphasizing
"sola fide". Now, personally I think the NT does not really concern
itself with ethics, its benign (by the standards of the time) ethical
code is the side result of the eschatological belief. That Christian
churches build an increasingly complex ethical system on top of this
happened more by accident than design, or rather necessity than
volition. I think Christ meant absolutely literally what he said in
Matt 16:28, Mark 9:1, Mark 13:30, Luke 9:27 and several other places.
With the final judgement a matter of tears if not days, pursuing worldly
goals - the reason for bad actions - is simply pointless. That was
also the position of the early church, and one of their problems.

> Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.

I'd very much doubt this. Normal evidentiary standards ask what the
proposition is that you need evidence for, then asks what the best type
of evidence is, and then evaluates the all the evidence for and against
the proposition.

The proposition here is one of belief - you are a Christian if you
believe certain things. What things you must believe have of course been
controversial among Christians through the centuries but the apostolic
creed seems a good common denominator.

Since beliefs, just like feelings, are internal mental states, the
person with the best access to them is the person who holds them: you
and only you know what you really think or feel.

As a result, we use both in everyday life and in court witness
statements about internal states all the time, sound epsitemological
("best evidence") and evidentiary practice. If I tell my dentist I'm in
pain, he'll accept this until proven otherwise - after all I should
know. We ask people in trial if they consented to certain activities, or
how they feel about what was done to them (victim impact statements) or
about the reasons that made them do certain things.

All these are strong evidence, but also, like all empirical evidence,
rebuttable evidence. We can e.g. find overwhelming evidence that someone
was lying. Or simply misunderstood the question, or what the words he
gave as answer mean.

That's the same for being member of a religious belief. Expression of
their beliefs is strong evidence, but can be rebutted by counter
evidence - or strengthened by supporting evidence.

In the case of religion, in most cases people inherit their belief from
their parents and society - so looking at their upbringing etc is
another data point, as is looking for visible breaks from the community
they grew up in. Theologically, this is of course particularly relevant
in Christianity through the concept of baptism as an external sign of
being received into the faith.

Consistency of expressed opinion across time and audiences is another
relevant factor. Reason to be untruthful yet another. (but by no means a
determining one people have reasons to be untruthful all the time, we
still mostly say the truth).

Christianity is also a communal activity (when 2 or three are together
in my name..) so participation in communal expression of faith is
another possible data point (that's of course behind the persecution of
the "recusants" in reformation England)

And if there is what you perceive a discrepancy between action and
professed belief, you need to ask them how they reconcile the two -the
type of answer they give will be crucial, as per my examples above for
different types of mass murderer.

there are other possible criteria, with varying degrees of weight. But
merely a persons actions is neither necessary nor sufficient to make
that call.




>
> Ray

Ray, if I gave you this argument: Being an atheists is all about being
rational and evidence based. Since Plato, we know that doing evil is
always a sign of ignorance. So by definition, you can't be an atheist
while doing evil. Would you accept that argument? It is as bad as yours
- well, actually, yours is worse given the Christian position on sin.
>

[Burkhard]

Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:04 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>>
>> In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
>>
>> Ray
>
> Ray, I'd say that the evidentiary standard for believing that someone is a Christian is their profession of faith. I have no way to evaluate whether someone is sincere.

Well, I'd say that goes a bit too far. You could try a lie detection
test with fmri. Or investigate if the person is consistent over times
and places (and did not say 20 min later in the pub: hah, fooled them all"

There are reasonably reliable ways to determine if someone was lying,
and we use them all the time. For internal beliefs, someone's statement
is good evidence, but like all evidence it can be rebutted.

And then there might be misunderstandings. If someone claims to be a
Christian, and further evidence indicates that they exclusively go to
Beltane festivals, jump over the fire and believe that spilling wine and
animal blood (and sometimes that of virgin police officers) will ensure
a good harvest, I'd say they are not bad at being Christians , they are
just confused about the vocabulary.

More seriously, there is a "private language argument" in there
somewhere. Not every belief will do I'd say, it needs to have a
recognizable link to some stable community of meaning. That still rules
in all sort of marginal and fringe groups of a religion, but not
everything that someone made up on their own. A question for historians
of ideas, I'd say: was there a sufficiently sizeable and sufficiently
stable group that shared the same understanding of core concepts and (in
the case of Christianity) based them on scripture in ne way or the other

>It is obvious that people who are sincere Christians sin nonetheless. You've said as much. You've even said that it is faith, not works, that determines whether someone is saved.
>
> In addition, what I might consider mass murder, ie the fire bombing of Dresden or the genocide of the Amalekites, you, a Christian, consider justified vengeance. So you, who certainly claim to be a Christian, support what I consider to be atrocities.

Og, he said much worse than that - advocating the bombing of Tehran and
other civilian population centers because the Iranian president denied
the holocaust, e.g. - and voting for a president in the hope this will
actually happen. This is not just an abstract argument about historical
wrongs, his ethics really is repugnant.

[Ernest Major]

On 20/11/2017 05:11, Ray Martinez wrote:
> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.

I would take both a broader and a narrower view. Broader, in that there
are Christians who don't, for example, believe in the divinity of Christ
(e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians), and narrower, in that I'd
require the profession to be sincere.

So a Christian is anyone who sincerely claims to be a Christian.

>
> In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.

You are equivocating between being a Christian and being a follower of
Christ. You're claims to be a Christian are not fully convincing, since
you regularly define Christian in a way to exclude yourself, but I am
willing to provisionally accept that you are a Christian. On the other
hand I don't consider you a follower of Christ.

I would not agree with a claim that whether being a Christian is exempt
from normal evidentiary standards; whether someone claims to be a
Christian is easily tested, and whether they are sincere is also
something for which there can be evidence.
>
> Ray
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Sean Dillon]

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 8:15:02 AM UTC-6, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 20/11/2017 05:11, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>
> I would take both a broader and a narrower view. Broader, in that there
> are Christians who don't, for example, believe in the divinity of Christ
> (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians), and narrower, in that I'd
> require the profession to be sincere.

Well... I don't know that I quite agree with that. While Unitarianism is historically Christian, my experience is that UUists are all over the map in terms of what they believe, and whether they consider themselves Christian.

As for JWs, they do indeed believe that Jesus was divine -- that he was the Son of God and Saviour of Man -- they just don't believe that he is GOD.

[Ernest Major]

On 20/11/2017 15:23, Sean Dillon wrote:
> Well... I don't know that I quite agree with that. While Unitarianism is historically Christian, my experience is that UUists are all over the map in terms of what they believe, and whether they consider themselves Christian.

I wasn't confining myself to the present day, and didn't intend
specifically UUs by Unitarians. I am aware the contemporary UUs straddle
the divide between Christians and non-Christian.

If you want a doctrinal definition you can refer to, for example, Nicene
Christians. But I am unconvinced that there is a doctrinal definition
that includes all Christians.

>
> As for JWs, they do indeed believe that Jesus was divine -- that he was the Son of God and Saviour of Man -- they just don't believe that he is GOD.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> >
> >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> >
> >Ray
>
>
> You are correct that mass murder is a sin.

Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.

> I even accept for
> argument's sake that having an ax to grind is a sin. And as sins,
> they show that people who commit these sins are not following Christ.

Yes, it's axiomatic.

> Too bad there are so many other sins everybody does every day. Based
> on that, nobody can legitimately claim Christianity, and especially
> not those who say they don't sin.
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire

All that I have ever said: When/while a person is sinning they are not a Christian or following Christ. I showed this in the Bible via the Apostle Peter. One moment he was following Christ, the next moment he wasn't, then a moment later he was following again.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Ernest Major wrote:
> On 20/11/2017 15:23, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> Well... I don't know that I quite agree with that. While Unitarianism
>> is historically Christian, my experience is that UUists are all over
>> the map in terms of what they believe, and whether they consider
>> themselves Christian.
>
> I wasn't confining myself to the present day, and didn't intend
> specifically UUs by Unitarians. I am aware the contemporary UUs straddle
> the divide between Christians and non-Christian.
>
> If you want a doctrinal definition you can refer to, for example, Nicene
> Christians. But I am unconvinced that there is a doctrinal definition
> that includes all Christians.

Another test case could be the Mormons. I'd say religions and theories,
just like species, evolve. When speciation happened can be difficult to
tell, and there will be always grey areas and fuzzy borders. Sometimes
it will be driven by random mutations - like Henry VIII needing an heir,
and as a side result founding a new flavor of Christianity. Sometimes it
will be hybridization, like e.g. Santeria as fusion of Christian and
indigenous African religious beliefs.

To me this also indicates that it is not "just" the internal belief.
Rather, we match the internal belief as much as possible to an external
pattern. So we'd ask someone: what do you actually belief, in detail -
and then it doesn't matter that much if they call it Christian, or
something else, this then becomes an external assessment by historians
of ideas/comparative religion scholars.

So someone might say that they are Christian but when they describe
their beliefs in detail we could well be entitled to say: Oh actually
what you describe means you are actually a Rastafarian (or a Druze etc)
That's not to deny that they believe what they believe, just that they
mislabel it. Conversely, someone might claim not to be a Christian, yet
on closer inspection of what they believe one might conclude that yes,
actually, they are even though it is a position far from the mainstream,
e.g. a Swedenborgian.

The reason has to do with the logic of proper names vs descriptions.

So to that extend Ray is right, solely saying that one is a Christian,
even when sincere, is not quite enough, the actual content of the belief
must have a close enough match to a past or existing variety of it.
Still does not mean that "being nice" is a consideration.

[Sean Dillon]

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> > >
> > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> > >
> > >Ray
> >
> >
> > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
>
> Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.

Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.

>
> > I even accept for
> > argument's sake that having an ax to grind is a sin. And as sins,
> > they show that people who commit these sins are not following Christ.
>
> Yes, it's axiomatic.

They may not be "following Christ" in that moment, but they may still be a followER of Christ, in the general sense. Besides which: being a Christian is a matter of BELIEF, not a matter of BEHAVIOR.

>
> > Too bad there are so many other sins everybody does every day. Based
> > on that, nobody can legitimately claim Christianity, and especially
> > not those who say they don't sin.
> >
> > --
> > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
> >
> > Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> > Attributed to Voltaire
>
> All that I have ever said: When/while a person is sinning they are not a Christian or following Christ.

Those are two different things. Yes, a person IS still a Christian while they are sinning. Their beliefs have not changed, therefore neither has their religious identity.

>I showed this in the Bible via the Apostle Peter. One moment he was following Christ, the next moment he wasn't, then a moment later he was following again.
>
> Ray

This is a radical over-interpretation of the story. Peter never ceases to be a follower of Christ. He merely makes a well-intentioned suggestion that Jesus doesn't like. Jesus doesn't like it because he is TEMPTED by that suggestion, which is why he reacts to the temptation by embodying it in the person of Satan. Whether or not Jesus actually believe the Devil was behind the suggestion, there is no reason to think Jesus doubted Peter's good intentions or commitment.

I'm sorry, Ray, but this whole notion of whiplash, on-and-off Christians is profoundly absurd and blatantly self-serving. A Christian doesn't cease to be a Christian unless that person changes their beliefs. Christian sinners (also known as ALL Christians) are still Christians.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>
>In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.

Just two questions, Ray...

Was Torquemada a Christian?

Was Arnaud Amalric a Christian?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/19/17 9:11 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>
> In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.

I get the impression that you want Christianity to be an exclusive club,
one that keeps out those disreputable Atheists, Jews, Democrats, people
who live on welfare, etc. But Christianity does not work that way. In
fact, Christianity was set up to work the *opposite* way. Anyone who
wants in gets admitted.

There is good reason for that. To the best of my knowledge, the best
way to keep a sinner from sinning is to show them a better way to live.
You can't do that by keeping them away from you in a different part of
town. In fact, you can't do that by spending time with them and
treating them with contempt all the while. If you cannot love the
sinner (and *show* it in your behavior to them), you are not alone; few
people are good at that. But if you think you should not have to, then
you have less claim to being a Christian than the people you would exclude.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Burkhard]

That would mean we could never know how many Christians there are (I
would say none, because none is without sin).

If you define "following Christ" as you do, then it simply means
something else than "being a Christian". Just as someone who does not
"follow the law of the US" is still an American.

>
> Ray
>

[Sean Dillon]

Right, which is why I keep pointing to a list of "basic beliefs," such at the (general form) of the Apostles Creed, as a good guidepost for who is or isn't Christian. As such, Mormons are Christians, they are just "Christian+", in the same way (though to a greater extent) as any specific sect of Christians builds on those basic beliefs.

[jillery]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:11:38 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

By that "reasoning", Christians don't sin, a direct contradiction of
what you have stated many times before. And so your circular
reasoning comes round again full circle.

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:20:03 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 11:15:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>
> NOPE! That is NOT what Sean has argued. Sean has argued that a Christian is any person who BELIEVES in the fundamental fact-claims of Christianity (which are pretty neatly laid out in the Apostles Creed).
>

WHOOSH!

One must SAY they believe thus your criteria is verbal belief just like I said. There's no other way, by your criteria, to know who believes? except if they SAY they believe.

> If you disagree with this assessment Ray, please tell me what you would have us label people who believe IN Christianity, but who fail to follow Christ the way you thing they should. (Hint: the answer is definitely not atheist, since atheists do NOT believe IN Christianity, by definition.)
>

I would label them as false claimants. Again, ANYONE can claim to be a Christian. Please tells us how you determine the claim to be true?

> Sean has further argued that there is no absolute proof that can establish what is in another person's heart and mind.
>

Then you're ignorant of what the Bible says. Granted, only God knows the heart and mind, but the Scriptures provide a way to determine who is following the Christ of the Bible and who is not. And I absolutely guarantee that you will HATE these methods of determination.

One method is approval by non-Christians or persecution by non-Christians. Christ said His true followers would be treated as He was treated. Makes sense because Christ affirmed that only two powers operate in the world: God's power, and Satan's power. Persecution, at the very least, means one is rejected by secular people. For example: I can't count how many times I've read in evolutionary literature that Ken Miller is a devout Catholic-Christian. The contextual sense is one of approval. Who approves of Miller's Christianity? These are Atheist authors like Jerry Coyne. IF Miller was a genuine Christian then Coyne would not approve of him. This particular test is one-hundred percent foolproof. Mind you, Coyne has specifically identified Miller as a devout Catholic-Christian. Coyne is not expressing approval of Miller apart from Miller's identity as a Catholic-Christian----that's why Coyne includes Miller's identity as a Catholic-Christian. Coyne is NOT approving of Catholic-Christianity, but Miller's Catholic-Christianity.

When C.S. Lewis announced he had converted to Christianity he immediately suffered rejection by his university colleagues. They criticized him; thus they persecuted him. The same indicates that Lewis's conversion was genuine.

>
However, barring evidence to the contrary, there is no especial reason to DOUBT a person's self-report of their own beliefs.
>

Imagine that! No action or behavior contradicts Sean's verbal belief criteria. One can commit mass murder or be a serial rapist and in Sean's eyes as long as the rapist or murderer expresses verbal belief in Christ these persons were Christians when they murdered and raped.

Obviously, Sean, an Atheist, is a deranged animal. He has SAVAGE hatred of Christianity, wishing to slander the main religion of America any way he can.

> Finally, Sean have argued that sinful behavior -- even EXTREMELY sinful behavior -- is not, in and of itself -- compelling evidence to the contrary of a person's self-report.
>

See, Sean plainly admits. When a man says he believes in Christ and when he is raping a woman or child he remains a Christian. Again, I think the only necessary response here is to remind the public that Sean is an admitted Atheist.

>
I make this claim on the basis that I was once a believing Christian, and I DID, while being a believing Christian, sometimes behave in ways that the Christian Church would deem sinful. So I can state affirmatively that such a thing is indeed very much possible.
>

Sean says he remained a Christian while sinning. He believed, at the time, that he was still going to heaven while he was denying Christ and sinning. The foregoing is solid evidence supporting the biblical claim that an invisible Deceiver exists.

>
> >
> > In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
>
> Actually, the Bible never defines the word "Christian." So it certainly never defines it as "following Christ."
>

Ridiculous.

Luke 9:23 KJV; Christ speaking:

"And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me."

Matthew 4:19 KJV; Christ speaking:

"And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

I could paste at least a dozen more, at least.

> And again: I reject your "following Christ" definition of Christianity, in that it excludes sinners, which is in direct contradiction to Christian teachings. All Christians are sinners. People are Christians and sinners AT THE SAME TIME, by the teaching of Christianity itself.
>

Even more ridiculous. It makes no such exclusion. You literally have no valid understanding of biblical Christianity. All followers of Christ are sinners, but when we sin we are not following. Again, I've shown how this works via the Apostle Peter: one moment he was following, the next moment he wasn't, the next moment he was. It's in the Bible.

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

> Obviously, Sean, an Atheist, is a deranged animal. He has SAVAGE hatred of Christianity, wishing to slander the main religion of America any way he can.

> Ray

Why do you bring America into this? Most Christians in the world live in Africa, South America, and Asia. Surely any savage, rabid atheist worth his salt hates Christianity because it's Christianity, not just because a bunch of Americans happen to be Christians.

[Sean Dillon]

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:20:03 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 11:15:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> >
> > NOPE! That is NOT what Sean has argued. Sean has argued that a Christian is any person who BELIEVES in the fundamental fact-claims of Christianity (which are pretty neatly laid out in the Apostles Creed).
> >
>
> WHOOSH!
>
> One must SAY they believe thus your criteria is verbal belief just like I said. There's no other way, by your criteria, to know who believes? except if they SAY they believe.

Whoosh is right. You're confusing Epistemology with Metaphysics again, Ray.

See... there are two things going on here:

- What is TRUE
- What we KNOW

A person may be a Christian, REGARDLESS of whether we KNOW that person is a Christian. BEING a Christian doesn't require verbalizing it. But unless a person verbalizes it, we may never KNOW. Get it?

>
> > If you disagree with this assessment Ray, please tell me what you would have us label people who believe IN Christianity, but who fail to follow Christ the way you thing they should. (Hint: the answer is definitely not atheist, since atheists do NOT believe IN Christianity, by definition.)
> >
>
> I would label them as false claimants.

But theologically, what would you call their religious position? If they aren't Christians, and they aren't Atheists, what ARE they? In you mind?

> Again, ANYONE can claim to be a Christian. Please tells us how you determine the claim to be true?

Well...
A) I don't generally consider it any of my business to make that determination.
B) If I feel the need to make that determination for some reason, I would look at whether there is any compelling reason to suppose they may be lying. If not, I take them at their word. If so, I reserve judgement, since ultimately only they can know what is in their own heads.

>
> > Sean has further argued that there is no absolute proof that can establish what is in another person's heart and mind.
> >
>
> Then you're ignorant of what the Bible says. Granted, only God knows the heart and mind, but the Scriptures provide a way to determine who is following the Christ of the Bible and who is not. And I absolutely guarantee that you will HATE these methods of determination.

The Bible may provide a way to know who is "following Christ" (an action), but provides no way to know who is a Christian (a belief-set).

>
> One method is approval by non-Christians or persecution by non-Christians. Christ said His true followers would be treated as He was treated. Makes sense because Christ affirmed that only two powers operate in the world: God's power, and Satan's power. Persecution, at the very least, means one is rejected by secular people. For example: I can't count how many times I've read in evolutionary literature that Ken Miller is a devout Catholic-Christian. The contextual sense is one of approval. Who approves of Miller's Christianity? These are Atheist authors like Jerry Coyne. IF Miller was a genuine Christian then Coyne would not approve of him. This particular test is one-hundred percent foolproof. Mind you, Coyne has specifically identified Miller as a devout Catholic-Christian. Coyne is not expressing approval of Miller apart from Miller's identity as a Catholic-Christian----that's why Coyne includes Miller's identity as a Catholic-Christian. Coyne is NOT approving of Catholic-Christianity, but Miller's Catholic-Christianity.
>
> When C.S. Lewis announced he had converted to Christianity he immediately suffered rejection by his university colleagues. They criticized him; thus they persecuted him. The same indicates that Lewis's conversion was genuine.

Sorry, but that isn't a legitimate test of a person's Christianity. I don't hate it, I just reject it. P.S. Ray: I approve of your Christianity. It is only you're bigotry and creationism I reject. So... I guess by that merit, you're not a Christian either, huh?

>
> >
> However, barring evidence to the contrary, there is no especial reason to DOUBT a person's self-report of their own beliefs.
> >
>
> Imagine that! No action or behavior contradicts Sean's verbal belief criteria. One can commit mass murder or be a serial rapist and in Sean's eyes as long as the rapist or murderer expresses verbal belief in Christ these persons were Christians when they murdered and raped.

Murder and rape simply don't contradict the possibility that a person believes the central tenets of Christianity. Again: ALL CHRISTIANS SIN. This is a basic claim of Christianity itself.

What actions or behaviors would offer compelling reason to doubt a person's Christianity? If a person was witnessed regularly taking part in a different religion. If a person was witnessed making comments denying their belief in Christianity or disparaging Christianity, or expressing a wish to destroy Christianity. If a person was shown to not be aware of the basic tenets of Christianity. If a person had a history of defiling Christian symbols. If a person's assertion that they were a Christian was made under coersion. If they only time a person expressed their belief in Christianity was when there was political benefit to be gained by it. THESE would all suggest to me that a person's Christianity was suspect. That's not a comprehensive list, but some strong examples. Not on that list?: lying, stealing, cheating, raping, murdering, etc.

>
> Obviously, Sean, an Atheist, is a deranged animal. He has SAVAGE hatred of Christianity, wishing to slander the main religion of America any way he can.

Not at all. Atheists are JUST AS prone to doing terrible things are Christians are. They just aren't MORE prone. It isn't slander to say that Christians are just like the rest of us.

> > Finally, Sean have argued that sinful behavior -- even EXTREMELY sinful behavior -- is not, in and of itself -- compelling evidence to the contrary of a person's self-report.
> >
>
> See, Sean plainly admits. When a man says he believes in Christ and when he is raping a woman or child he remains a Christian. Again, I think the only necessary response here is to remind the public that Sean is an admitted Atheist.

A Christian man who is raping a woman or child (or man or animal for that matter) is a BAD Christian, and a BAD person. But that man is still a Christian, and still a person. Sorry this drives you to such paroxysms, but it is still true.

>
> >
> I make this claim on the basis that I was once a believing Christian, and I DID, while being a believing Christian, sometimes behave in ways that the Christian Church would deem sinful. So I can state affirmatively that such a thing is indeed very much possible.
> >
>
> Sean says he remained a Christian while sinning. He believed, at the time, that he was still going to heaven while he was denying Christ and sinning.

That isn't what I said. There is a difference between being a Christian and being Heaven-bound.

>The foregoing is solid evidence supporting the biblical claim that an invisible Deceiver exists.


>
> >
> > >
> > > In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> >
> > Actually, the Bible never defines the word "Christian." So it certainly never defines it as "following Christ."
> >
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> Luke 9:23 KJV; Christ speaking:
>
> "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me."
>
> Matthew 4:19 KJV; Christ speaking:
>
> "And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."
>
> I could paste at least a dozen more, at least.

Yeah... neither of those is a definition of "Christian." Those are instructions.

>
> > And again: I reject your "following Christ" definition of Christianity, in that it excludes sinners, which is in direct contradiction to Christian teachings. All Christians are sinners. People are Christians and sinners AT THE SAME TIME, by the teaching of Christianity itself.
> >
>
> Even more ridiculous. It makes no such exclusion. You literally have no valid understanding of biblical Christianity. All followers of Christ are sinners, but when we sin we are not following. Again, I've shown how this works via the Apostle Peter: one moment he was following, the next moment he wasn't, the next moment he was. It's in the Bible.
>
> Ray

As I've said before, you are badly mangling and over-interpreting that story. Peter never ceased to be a follower of Christ, and the story doesn't claim that he does. Christians remain Christians, unless they change their beliefs. Their behavior simply doesn't come into it.

[Burkhard]

Ah, you mean like Calvinists, Lutherans and several other protestant
groups? cf "Beeldenstorm" or "Bilderstuermer"

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:20:03 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 11:15:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>>
>> NOPE! That is NOT what Sean has argued. Sean has argued that a Christian is any person who BELIEVES in the fundamental fact-claims of Christianity (which are pretty neatly laid out in the Apostles Creed).
>>
>
> WHOOSH!
>
> One must SAY they believe thus your criteria is verbal belief just like I said. There's no other way, by your criteria, to know who believes? except if they SAY they believe.

That confuses the definition of Christian with how we can establish if
someone is a Christian. As basic a methodological mistake as they come.

>
>> If you disagree with this assessment Ray, please tell me what you would have us label people who believe IN Christianity, but who fail to follow Christ the way you thing they should. (Hint: the answer is definitely not atheist, since atheists do NOT believe IN Christianity, by definition.)
>>
>
> I would label them as false claimants. Again, ANYONE can claim to be a Christian. Please tells us how you determine the claim to be true?

My guess would be like any other truth claim If necessarily through an
fmri lie detector test, failing this through their consistency in making
the claim, to various audiences, if it fits to everything else we know
about the person, e.g. were they brought up in a Christian environment
without an obvious falling out, participation in communal activities etc etc

>
>> Sean has further argued that there is no absolute proof that can establish what is in another person's heart and mind.
>>
>
> Then you're ignorant of what the Bible says. Granted, only God knows the heart and mind, but the Scriptures provide a way to determine who is following the Christ of the Bible and who is not.

First sentence in direct contradiction to the second.

>And I absolutely guarantee that you will HATE these methods of determination.
>
> One method is approval by non-Christians or persecution by non-Christians. Christ said His true followers would be treated as He was treated. Makes sense because Christ affirmed that only two powers operate in the world: God's power, and Satan's power. Persecution, at the very least, means one is rejected by secular people. For example: I can't count how many times I've read in evolutionary literature that Ken Miller is a devout Catholic-Christian. The contextual sense is one of approval. Who approves of Miller's Christianity? These are Atheist authors like Jerry Coyne. IF Miller was a genuine Christian then Coyne would not approve of him.

That's rubbish, most people are capable of tolerance and seeing the good
in folks that they disagree with on all sort of levels. It might not fit
in your hate filled view of the world, but sane and mentally healthy
people are capable of long and sincere friendship with people of other
beliefs, and capable to recognize and admire the good in parts of what
they are doing

Once again you depict Christians as psychopaths.

> This particular test is one-hundred percent foolproof.

Only that you yourself violate it all the time, when you cited e.g.
secular physicists as supporting the Christian ex nihilo creation.

>Mind you, Coyne has specifically identified Miller as a devout Catholic-Christian. Coyne is not expressing approval of Miller apart from Miller's identity as a Catholic-Christian----that's why Coyne includes Miller's identity as a Catholic-Christian. Coyne is NOT approving of Catholic-Christianity, but Miller's Catholic-Christianity.
>
> When C.S. Lewis announced he had converted to Christianity he immediately suffered rejection by his university colleagues.

Funny that, as his colleagues were the ones to convinced him to return
to Christianity, most notably the Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of
Anglo-Saxon, a certain Prof Tolkien.

Oxford in the 30s was firmly high Anglican. Now Cambridge, that migth
have been a different proposition.

> They criticized him; thus they persecuted him.

Only in the mind of a seriously deranged person with clinical self
esteem issues. I critizise my students when I give them feedback, I
don't persecute them. Parents criticize their children, journalists
politicians, adn politicians each other You cheapen the word
"persecution" - and given how you throw insults left, right and centre
that would make you anyway the persecutor-in-chief

> The same indicates that Lewis's conversion was genuine.

Of course it was genuine, just as far as reasons to knwo this go these
are about the worst I ever heard.

>
>>
> However, barring evidence to the contrary, there is no especial reason to DOUBT a person's self-report of their own beliefs.
>>
>
> Imagine that! No action or behavior contradicts Sean's verbal belief criteria.

Nope, just your reading problem again. It's in the "barring evidence to
the contrary" part.

> One can commit mass murder or be a serial rapist and in Sean's eyes as long as the rapist or murderer expresses verbal belief in Christ these persons were Christians when they murdered and raped

Nope, as long as they keep believe in Christianity while they are doing
it - as quite a lot of the Serbian soldiers who wore the cross on their
sleeves undoubtedly did when they used mass rape on Bosnia as a means of
ethnic cleansing. That their commander and chief instigator was an
atheist (Ratko Mladić) simply shows how far removed form reality your
world view is. 4,000 foreign Orthodox Christian volunteered e.g. to
participate in the massacres.

Mirko Jović called for "a Christian, Orthodox Serbia with no Muslims and
no unbelievers" a sentiment tat could have come directly from you.

.
>
> Obviously, Sean, an Atheist, is a deranged animal. He has SAVAGE hatred of Christianity, wishing to slander the main religion of America any way he can.

Someone sure is deranged here. Saying Christians are not better, but
also not worse than followers of other religions and none is not, for
sane people, an expression of savage hatred. Nor is it slander (ad you
really mean libel, look it up in any legal textbook I gave you citations
to several), just a fact. Christians too are humans, and sometimes they
fail. Only someone with a totally warped view of the world would
consider it "savage hatred and slander" if a non-Christian argued that
Christians are not necessarily and obviously better than him and his group.

>
>> Finally, Sean have argued that sinful behavior -- even EXTREMELY sinful behavior -- is not, in and of itself -- compelling evidence to the contrary of a person's self-report.
>>
>
> See, Sean plainly admits. When a man says he believes in Christ and when he is raping a woman or child he remains a Christian.

No, this is not what Sean says, just your incompetent reading. He says
if that person still believes in Christ - whether he says it or not is
irrelevant.

>Again, I think the only necessary response here is to remind the public that Sean is an admitted Atheist.
>
>>
> I make this claim on the basis that I was once a believing Christian, and I DID, while being a believing Christian, sometimes behave in ways that the Christian Church would deem sinful. So I can state affirmatively that such a thing is indeed very much possible.
>>
>
> Sean says he remained a Christian while sinning. He believed, at the time, that he was still going to heaven while he was denying Christ and sinning. The foregoing is solid evidence supporting the biblical claim that an invisible Deceiver exists.
>
>>
>>>
>>> In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
>>
>> Actually, the Bible never defines the word "Christian." So it certainly never defines it as "following Christ."
>>
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> Luke 9:23 KJV; Christ speaking:
>
> "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me."

where is the word "Christian" there?

>
> Matthew 4:19 KJV; Christ speaking:
>
> "And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

where is the word "Christian" there?

>
> I could paste at least a dozen more, at least.

Maybe one of them that actually defines the word "Christian"? For tat it
would be necessary that the word actually appears in the text, you know.

>
>> And again: I reject your "following Christ" definition of Christianity, in that it excludes sinners, which is in direct contradiction to Christian teachings. All Christians are sinners. People are Christians and sinners AT THE SAME TIME, by the teaching of Christianity itself.
>>
>
> Even more ridiculous. It makes no such exclusion. You literally have no valid understanding of biblical Christianity. All followers of Christ are sinners, but when we sin we are not following.

But still Christians, just not good at it,

>Again, I've shown how this works via the Apostle Peter: one moment he was following, the next moment he wasn't, the next moment he was. It's in the Bible.

Yah, the amazing oscillating Christians, like Schroedinger's cat, both
Christian and not as long as nobody is looking.
>
> Ray
>

[Ray Martinez]

Bill further explains his vebal profession view as whoever professes in a sincere manner. Anyone of course can profess in a sincere manner especially a trained actor, actress, or lawyer. After Bill posted his message. I've since proposed a way to determine sincerity or genuineness. Perhaps Bill will respond to this message?

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

Ray, you've said that Christians sin. To sin is to fail to follow Christ. Therefore Christians, sometimes, fail to follow Christ. What's so hard to admit about that.

If you try to avoid admitting that, you end up believing that you yourself flip between being a Christian and being an atheist, possibly several times per day.

There's no infallible way to determine sincerity, since one can always hypothesize that the professed Christian is simply an excellent actor ("Once you can fake sincerity, you've got it made.") Asking how someone behaves won't do the trick. You have implied that you would have been OK with fire bombing Dresden, and maybe nuking Tehran. Those are acts I (and also many Christians) consider incompatible with following Christ. You seem to think that they are morally OK. But I do not doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs, however morally wrong I think the conclusions you draw from them are.

So I cannot judge sincerity based on the apparent sincerity of one's profession of faith, nor on one's actions, since they may think following Christ permits acts that I would not think it does permit. Then I'm stuck with just taking people's claim to believe in Christ at face value. As Burkhard has pointed out, it might be possible to conclude they are insincere in rare circumstances - e.g you hear a recording of them mocking all the people they've fooled with their false profession of faith. But basically I think people can self-identify their religion and it's not my place to contest it. I may tell them that, like you, they are doing a lousy job following its tenets, but I can't tell them they don't belong to the religion they claim to belong to.

[Sean Dillon]

Context is everything. The defiling of Christian symbols would lead me to DOUBT a person's Christianity. Then I would examine WHY they defiled those symbols.

[Sean Dillon]

It is starting to dawn on me, Ray, that what annoys me about your position is how utterly un-Christian it actually is. Jesus didn't hang with the holier-than-thou. He hung around whores and lepers and tax collectors. I'm not a Christian any more, but I've always admired that about the figure of Christ. His people weren't the clean ones, but the dirty ones in need of redemption. A "Christian" who claims that the sinful aren't Christian is the living antithesis of Christ's message.

[Burkhard]

They might be a ring species. Orthodox Mormons are non-trinitarians, so
reject the apostolic creed, but the Community of Christ variety of
Mormonism is Trinitarian.

And some protestant churches whose baptism is recognized by mainstream
christian churches also recognize Mormon baptism

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/20/17 12:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:20:03 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 11:15:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>>
>> NOPE! That is NOT what Sean has argued. Sean has argued that a Christian is any person who BELIEVES in the fundamental fact-claims of Christianity (which are pretty neatly laid out in the Apostles Creed).
>>
>
> WHOOSH!
>
> One must SAY they believe thus your criteria is verbal belief just like I said. There's no other way, by your criteria, to know who believes? except if they SAY they believe.
>
>> If you disagree with this assessment Ray, please tell me what you would have us label people who believe IN Christianity, but who fail to follow Christ the way you thing they should. (Hint: the answer is definitely not atheist, since atheists do NOT believe IN Christianity, by definition.)
>>
>
> I would label them as false claimants. Again, ANYONE can claim to be a Christian. Please tells us how you determine the claim to be true?
>
>> Sean has further argued that there is no absolute proof that can establish what is in another person's heart and mind.
>>
>
> Then you're ignorant of what the Bible says. Granted, only God knows the heart and mind, but the Scriptures provide a way to determine who is following the Christ of the Bible and who is not. And I absolutely guarantee that you will HATE these methods of determination.
>
> One method is approval by non-Christians or persecution by non-Christians. Christ said His true followers would be treated as He was treated. Makes sense because Christ affirmed that only two powers operate in the world: God's power, and Satan's power. Persecution, at the very least, means one is rejected by secular people. For example: I can't count how many times I've read in evolutionary literature that Ken Miller is a devout Catholic-Christian. The contextual sense is one of approval. Who approves of Miller's Christianity? These are Atheist authors like Jerry Coyne. IF Miller was a genuine Christian then Coyne would not approve of him. This particular test is one-hundred percent foolproof. Mind you, Coyne has specifically identified Miller as a devout Catholic-Christian. Coyne is not expressing approval of Miller apart from Miller's identity as a Catholic-Christian----that's why Coyne includes Miller's identity as a Catholic-Christian. Coyne is NOT approving of Catholic-Christianity, but Miller's Catholic-Christianity.
>
> When C.S. Lewis announced he had converted to Christianity he immediately suffered rejection by his university colleagues. They criticized him; thus they persecuted him. The same indicates that Lewis's conversion was genuine.
>
>>
> However, barring evidence to the contrary, there is no especial reason to DOUBT a person's self-report of their own beliefs.
>>
>
> Imagine that! No action or behavior contradicts Sean's verbal belief criteria. One can commit mass murder or be a serial rapist and in Sean's eyes as long as the rapist or murderer expresses verbal belief in Christ these persons were Christians when they murdered and raped.
>
> Obviously, Sean, an Atheist, is a deranged animal. He has SAVAGE hatred of Christianity, wishing to slander the main religion of America any way he can.

And yet it is Ray, a so-called Christian, who shows Christianity to be
more disreputable.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/20/17 10:11 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>>>
>>> In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>
>> You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
>
> Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.

Let's consider an equivalent situation with less emotion behind it.

Dale self-identifies as a fashion designer. Of Dale's income in the
last 20 years, 100% comes from selling fashion designs. Today, however,
Dale is making a needlepoint "Home Sweet Home" sign for a daughter.

Is Dale, still today, a fashion designer?

Dale also self-identifies as a Christian, goes to church every week, and
volunteers to feed the homeless. Today, however, she is not thinking
about Christ, going to church, or feeding the homeless, because she is
concentrating on needlepoint.

Is Dale, still today, a Christian?

[Sean Dillon]

Ha! I enjoy the image of a religious ring species.

[Sean Dillon]

Ray has previously asserted that an actor is only an actor when he is actually acting. So it wouldn't surprise me if he applied the same twisted logic here. The notion that actor, fashion designer, and Christian are all OVERALL identity labels seems to escape Ray. Or rather, he seems to actively run from it, since it undercuts his thesis.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:11:38 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>> >
>> >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
>> >
>> >Ray
>>
>>
>> You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
>
>Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.

Thus Christians cannot, by definition, sin, despite what the
Bible says, and what Christ said.

>> I even accept for
>> argument's sake that having an ax to grind is a sin. And as sins,
>> they show that people who commit these sins are not following Christ.
>
>Yes, it's axiomatic.

Cue Inigo Montoya...

>> Too bad there are so many other sins everybody does every day. Based
>> on that, nobody can legitimately claim Christianity, and especially
>> not those who say they don't sin.

>All that I have ever said: When/while a person is sinning they are not a Christian or following Christ. I showed this in the Bible via the Apostle Peter. One moment he was following Christ, the next moment he wasn't, then a moment later he was following again.

And therefore no Christian can sin. Q.E.D.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:53:50 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>> > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>> > >
>> > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
>> > >
>> > >Ray
>> >
>> >
>> > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
>>
>> Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.
>
>Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.

....but not of Raytianity.

>> > I even accept for
>> > argument's sake that having an ax to grind is a sin. And as sins,
>> > they show that people who commit these sins are not following Christ.
>>
>> Yes, it's axiomatic.
>
>They may not be "following Christ" in that moment, but they may still be a followER of Christ, in the general sense. Besides which: being a Christian is a matter of BELIEF, not a matter of BEHAVIOR.
>>
>> > Too bad there are so many other sins everybody does every day. Based
>> > on that, nobody can legitimately claim Christianity, and especially
>> > not those who say they don't sin.
>> >
>> > --
>> > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>> >
>> > Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> > Attributed to Voltaire
>>
>> All that I have ever said: When/while a person is sinning they are not a Christian or following Christ.
>
>Those are two different things. Yes, a person IS still a Christian while they are sinning. Their beliefs have not changed, therefore neither has their religious identity.
>
>>I showed this in the Bible via the Apostle Peter. One moment he was following Christ, the next moment he wasn't, then a moment later he was following again.
>>
>> Ray
>
>This is a radical over-interpretation of the story. Peter never ceases to be a follower of Christ. He merely makes a well-intentioned suggestion that Jesus doesn't like. Jesus doesn't like it because he is TEMPTED by that suggestion, which is why he reacts to the temptation by embodying it in the person of Satan. Whether or not Jesus actually believe the Devil was behind the suggestion, there is no reason to think Jesus doubted Peter's good intentions or commitment.
>
>I'm sorry, Ray, but this whole notion of whiplash, on-and-off Christians is profoundly absurd and blatantly self-serving. A Christian doesn't cease to be a Christian unless that person changes their beliefs. Christian sinners (also known as ALL Christians) are still Christians.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:55:00 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:20:03 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:

>> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 11:15:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:

>> > In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic.

....or you could wean yourself from that "horrendous"
GurgleGropes...

>> > In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob >> > C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.

>> NOPE! That is NOT what Sean has argued. Sean has argued that a Christian is any person who BELIEVES in the fundamental fact-claims of Christianity (which are pretty neatly laid out in the Apostles Creed).

>WHOOSH!
>
>One must SAY they believe thus your criteria is verbal belief just like I said. There's no other way, by your criteria, to know who believes? except if they SAY they believe.

So, Ray, how do we know you are a Christian? You verbalize
it frequently, but your actions contradict Christ's
teaching, so I guess you're not a Christian at all, right?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:28:26 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com>:

Yep. But Ray will never accept, and probably will never
understand, that.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:50:52 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
><r3p...@gmail.com>:
>
>>In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>>
>>In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
>
>Just two questions, Ray...
>
>Was Torquemada a Christian?
>
>Was Arnaud Amalric a Christian?

C'mon, Ray, they're not *that* hard to answer.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:17:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:53:50 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
><seand...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>>> > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>> > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>>> > >
>>> > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
>>> > >
>>> > >Ray
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
>>>
>>> Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.
>>
>>Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.
>
>....but not of Raytianity.

That's a useful neologism, one worthy of The Urban Dictionary.

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 4:55:03 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:

> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>
>

> This seems to have been on one of the OT threads that I did not follow,
> but I'm reasonably certain that neither argued this.

They did indeed.

> Which one could say
> makes you a liar, which might be a sin - does it follow from this alone
> that you aren't a Christian?

Burk expresses disbelief that anyone could argue verbal profession as a criteria to establish their Christianity. I agree; it's manifestly loony. I've been pounding away at this nonsense. Again, anyone can recite the Apostle's Creed or verbalize belief in the Divinity of Christ, anyone.

>
> Now, my guess is that what they argued was instead that s) it is the
> beliefs specified in the Creed that define membership in the Christian
> community (rather than any other old belief, or a person's external
> actions - sola fide and all that) and b) that since nobody knows better
> what you believe than you, a person's verbal ascent to these creeds is
> strong....

Now Burk contradicts the spirit of what he just said----that no one in their right mind could advocate a verbal profession criteria to establish genuine status as a Christian. SHEESH! AGAIN, ANYONE can recite a creed: an actor or actress, or lawyer, or a child molester, or mass murderer, or even the town drunk.

> ....but of course rebuttable evidence for actually holding such a
> belief. (rebuttable means the inference can be defeated if there is
> strong counter evidence) Which is of course not only theologically
> sound, but in line with Christian practice through the ages, from the
> public affirmation of the Creed during mass/Holy communion....

Mass; communion in church via a round wafer for certain congregants that had complied with other man-made doctrines.

These are NOT biblical practices or Protestantism, but rites that the Roman church adopted from secular society and grafted into their worship. When Christ instituted communion during the Last Supper, His blood was in His body and His flesh covered His bones. He distributed broken bread and real wine. None of this, though, determines Christianity because ANYONE can take communion or attend a church service. In the New Testament demon-possessed persons attended religious services.

> ....to the
> emphasis countries with a Christian state church like the England put at
> various times the "test oaths" to determine heresies.

So all one had to do was lie to escape a horrible death?

>
> Indeed, quite often when the christian churches veered away from the
> principle that public declaration of faith was a sound way to establish
> membership in the Church, brutality followed - that was after all the
> trigger for the inquisition: the authorities distrusted the expressed
> statements of converted Jews, and tried to find out what the truly"
> believed - by tearing them limb from limb.

Where did you obtain the idea that the Inquisitors were following New Testament teachings or doctrine? ANYONE can claim to speak for Christ or don a robe embroidered with a cross. Ever heard of the New Testament concept "wolf in sheep's clothing"?

>
> >
> > In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind.
>

> Two rather different issues mixed up here. The "ax to grind" case is
> better suited for the argument you try to make. Yes, people sometimes
> lie. But we have criteria for determining if this is likely the case.
> This includes consistency over time and audiences, reasons to lie/to be
> truthful, and yes, also consistency between actions and stated beliefs.
> But all of these are in turn defeasible, and you need to evaluate the
> totality of the evidence, and its respective strength.
>
> The mass murdered by contrast makes neither epistemological nor
> theological sense, especially not for Protestants (for Catholics, the
> doctrine of mortal sin complicates the issue a bit, but only a bit)

Not sure what your point here, is?

>
> The theological problems are obvious, and I pointed them out to you
> before - at which point I think you essentially agreed, but did not
> realize that this is inconsistent with your line of argument. The core
> tenet of Christianity is the ubiquity, but also the forgiveness of sin.
> Everybody is a sinner, nobody beyond redemption. And in the eyes of God
> all sins are equal....

The situation as a whole suffers much harm by your summarizing and condensing.

> ....(one of the more ethically problematic ideas, and the
> RCC tried to wriggle out of it, but with little basis in scripture as
> far as I can see).
>
> So if you single out mass murder, you are already on theologically shaky
> grounds, "impure thoughts" would have worked just as well.

I never said or implied that a mass murderer was beyond the grace of God. WHAT I'VE SAID is that a person is not following Christ when they are sinning, whether that sin is mass murder or impure thoughts.

> And by
> undermining the idea that we are all inevitably sinners you undermine
> the very foundations of Christianity.

From the very beginning of these debates I've said that Adamkind is born separated from God with an inherited capacity to sin, and that every person, no exception, commits trespasses daily. Trespasses are divided up into two categories: sins of the flesh, and sins of the Spirit. Both categories combined can be said to encompass actual violations of God law to mere desire to violate God's law; and actual violations of spiritual laws of righteousness to mere desire to violate spiritual laws of righteousness. The variance seen is quite wide. Even the best performing Christian is far from perfect because we never fully escape the corruption of being born in Adam until we die and go to Heaven.

> At worst, in your analysis nobody
> ever was a Christian.

Then you haven't understood anything I've said. Since you're an Atheist-Evolutionist, no surprise.

> At best you get "oscillating Christians": Asleep:
> a Christian. Woke up ad had bacon for breakfast: probably a Christian,
> but depending if you can weasel out of Mathew 5:18. Starts reading
> newspaper, all fine up to page 2 when an image of film star at Oscars
> causes impure thoughts, at which point person becomes atheist. Reads on
> to sport page and becomes a Christian again, until he reads about salary
> of football star and briefly covets it - not a Christian at that point.
> and so on and so forth through the day, so yo never know if someone is a
> Christian at any given point in time.

I've argued my claims using the Apostle Peter as an example: one moment he is walking with Christ, the next moment he isn't, the next moment he's walking again with Christ: it's in the Bible. The Bible says when Peter was not walking with Christ he was actually walking with Satan, if only for a moment, but it does say that.

Notice in the above scenario departure from walking with Christ does not last for a long time, but for a moment. Yet some people backslide for days, weeks, months, and even many years, then re-commence walking with Christ, yet some do not but become apostate like Charles Darwin. The example of Peter can be fitted for any duration of time: a moment to many years. Now don't misunderstand and think Christ is ALWAYS available. There's a risk when one chooses to depart from Christ and sin. The risk is that Christ will reject the backslider and let them go. WHEN this happens the sinner feels no remorse or concern, like Charles Darwin. Darwin basically said he felt no guilt or sense of great sin for abandoning Christ. Unlike the thief on the cross: he acknowledged Christ in a correct manner and was assured of salvation. The point is we don't know how long God will wait for any given sinner to repent; it varies.

>
> The epistemological problems follow from this. "Being a Christian"
> becomes a meaningless term that does not match anything in reality, in
> particular not the real existing social phenomenon of Christian
> churches. You could never say e.g. "how many Christians are there" at
> any point in time - could be none, 1 or millions.
>
> Another epistemological problem is that "being a mass murderer" allows
> only indirect inferences to what that person believed at the time. I
> gave you a number of possible scenarios is another post to which you
> never replied. In particular, we can distinguish:
>
> - being a mass murdered but accepting that this is against Christ's
> teaching, feeling terribly about it and praying for forgiveness -
> definitely a Christian as term is normally understood.
>
> - being a mass murderer, but arguing that an exception consistent with
> Christian teaching applies, e.g.: was not real murder but self defense.
> You do this all the time yourself, e.g. with your morally reprehensible
> argument for the mass killing of civilians and children in the middle
> east, because you disapprove of the attitude of their president (in
> whose election they had little say). Few Christians would agree with you
> that your excuses are sound, and they are indeed redolent of the worst
> Christianity had brought forth through the ages - your argument in
> particular that it does not matter that children will burn, get their
> limbs torn apart and painfully waste away from radiation sickness
> because "God will then let them into paradise" reeks of the massacre at
> Béziers and the "kill them all, God will find his own". While I and I
> guess most Christians, find your ethics repugnant, I accept that you try
> to make an argument based on your understanding of the Bible, however
> incompetently, and that means I still consider you a Christian, just one
> who is very bad at it.

I literally have no idea why you offer these thoughts? I see no relevant context.

>
> - being a mass murderer and not only saying that there was a legitimate
> excuse, but indeed a divine command to do so. In this case it all
> depends on how the argument is made, and if there is a genuine attempt
> to base it on Scripture, even if I disagree with the interpretation.
>
> - being a mass murderer in open defiance of God, or because you think
> there are no consequences. That and only that would mean you have now
> adopted a line of thought that is indeed incompatible with being a
> Christian.
>
> As others have pointed out, "being bad at being a Christian" and "none
> being a Christian" are epistemological (and in Christianity also
> theologically) 2 entirely different things

Again, relevance?

>
>
> >The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ?
> >

> Yup, believing in his divinity etc.

That's not the biblical criteria. The Bible says real followers of Christ will be treated as Christ was treated: they will suffer rejection and persecution for being a follower of Christ. Sorry, this particular criteria eliminates 99 percent of all so called Christians. The claim made visible in Paul. He was rejected by the then known church at the time while suffering persecution from church and secular alike for his theology. Notice that the mainstream church is NOT following Christ, led by James the epistle-writer, which explains and accounts for your Inquisitors and other manifestations of evil done under the appearance of hagiography.

Nothing has changed today (the Bible remains true). The mainstream churches are NOT following the Christ of the Bible. In other words the majority, whether religious or secular, are following Satan, under his control. Protestantism has once again slipped back into heresy. We have departed the light of the Reformation, which was BORN when Luther suddenly came to the New Testament realization that "the just shall live by faith" (sola fide) and not by the dead works of compliance to a code of conduct, Mosaic law. When persons come into compliance with the gospel, sola fide, they meet the Risen Christ and eventually, if they continue in the faith, they become the object of rejection and persecution, which the Christian has no control over. Other people, secular and non-secular, prove who is walking with Christ via slander and other acts of persecution. This is a biblical criteria and it's foolproof, unlike a verbal profession criteria which anyone can perform.

I hate to ring my own bell, but I am routinely slandered here by secular and non-secular alike. That's provable. In fact, you began your reply by saying that you didn't know if Sean and others advocated a verbal profession criteria, then you said that you believe that I made it up and had lied. Note that you admitted that you didn't know if Sean had done such a thing, but then you said you were confident that I made it up and lied (= slander). Yep, I'm a real follower of Christ. Thank You for proving my arguments true.

Ray (Protestant Evangelical)

[snip for now.....will finish ASAP....]

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 4:55:03 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>>
>>
>> This seems to have been on one of the OT threads that I did not follow,
>> but I'm reasonably certain that neither argued this.
>
> They did indeed.

Well, I just browsed through the thread, and they did indeed not. And
Sean in particular did in fact contradict you explicitly several times
when you made that claim, so you can hardly plead ignorance. As I
surmised, they say that everyone who does belief in the divinity of
Christ is Christian (that is the definition) and that the expression os
but one indicator of what a person believes (the diagnostic test).

>
>> Which one could say
>> makes you a liar, which might be a sin - does it follow from this alone
>> that you aren't a Christian?
>
> Burk expresses disbelief that anyone could argue verbal profession as a criteria to establish their Christianity. I agree; it's manifestly loony. I've been pounding away at this nonsense. Again, anyone can recite the Apostle's Creed or verbalize belief in the Divinity of Christ, anyone.

And as I said,nobody argued that this is an unrebuttabe inference, that
is either only in your mind, or an intentional lie on your side.

>
>>
>> Now, my guess is that what they argued was instead that s) it is the
>> beliefs specified in the Creed that define membership in the Christian
>> community (rather than any other old belief, or a person's external
>> actions - sola fide and all that) and b) that since nobody knows better
>> what you believe than you, a person's verbal ascent to these creeds is
>> strong....
>
> Now Burk contradicts the spirit of what he just said----that no one in their right mind could advocate a verbal profession criteria to establish genuine status as a Christian. SHEESH! AGAIN, ANYONE can recite a creed: an actor or actress, or lawyer, or a child molester, or mass murderer, or even the town drunk.

Yes, everyone "could" But normally people don't. That is we tend to
believe people unless we have reasons not to. The only reason I or
everyone else here has to believe you are a Christian are your words, in
particular your overlong signature. "Could" be that you are an atheist
and lying all the time - you sure are very efficient at making
Christians look stupid and immoral, and your knowledge of the Bible is
flaky at best (you seem to confuse it in parts with Plato's Timaeus -
but despite all this, for now I give you the benefit of the doubt and
accept you are a Christian, if one of a fringe belief. All just based on
your words.

>
>> ....but of course rebuttable evidence for actually holding such a
>> belief. (rebuttable means the inference can be defeated if there is
>> strong counter evidence) Which is of course not only theologically
>> sound, but in line with Christian practice through the ages, from the
>> public affirmation of the Creed during mass/Holy communion....
>
> Mass; communion in church via a round wafer for certain congregants that had complied with other man-made doctrines.

Well, for starters holy communion is what the Lutheran church I grew up
in called their equivalent of the catholic mass, so there you go wrong
right away.

And apart from that , my text made clear that I used it merely as an
example of public and communal practices that are an additional
criterion to establish if someone is a Christian, and these exist in
various forms in all Christian communities, based on Matthew 18:20

>
> These are NOT biblical practices or Protestantism, but rites that the Roman church adopted from secular society and grafted into their worship.

Ah yes, I forgot, in Ray world Catholics aren't Christians either. In
fact, nobody is a Christian but Ray.

> When Christ instituted communion during the Last Supper, His blood was in His body and His flesh covered His bones. He distributed broken bread and real wine. None of this, though, determines Christianity because ANYONE can take communion or attend a church service.

Sure, everyone can. And some people who are Christians can't. Which
means that just as I said it is one piece of evidence, that like all
other forms of evidence can be rebutted by stronger counter evidence, in
this case you'd have the burden to show that the person in question was
indeed possessed by demons etc.

> In the New Testament demon-possessed persons attended religious services.
>
>> ....to the
>> emphasis countries with a Christian state church like the England put at
>> various times the "test oaths" to determine heresies.
>
> So all one had to do was lie to escape a horrible death?

Yes, very much so. Though for most of the time, it was enough to escape
crippling fines, exclusion from public office, prohibition to attend
university, confiscation of your property etc. Horrible deaths were
reserved for catholic priests - and they too needed nothing more but to
say the words, even if it was seconds before they got publicly
disemboweled or squeezed to death with rocks placed on a wooden door
etc. The protestant torturers were every bid as innovative as their
catholic counterparts in Spain.

>
>>
>> Indeed, quite often when the christian churches veered away from the
>> principle that public declaration of faith was a sound way to establish
>> membership in the Church, brutality followed - that was after all the
>> trigger for the inquisition: the authorities distrusted the expressed
>> statements of converted Jews, and tried to find out what the truly"
>> believed - by tearing them limb from limb.
>
> Where did you obtain the idea that the Inquisitors were following New Testament teachings or doctrine? ANYONE can claim to speak for Christ or don a robe embroidered with a cross. Ever heard of the New Testament concept "wolf in sheep's clothing"?

Well, first you are once again missing the point. I brought up the
Inquisitors because they fully agree with you. The inquisition started
because of the feeling that "everybody can merely profess to claim a
Christian" and if you challenged that, you'd be asked if you every heard
of a wolf in sheep's clothing". Before the inquisition, Jews that
professed to have converted were left in peace, but people who thought
exactly like you decided that that was just not good enough, and the
"true" belief had to be established.

As for whether the Inquisition did follow Christ's teaching , I would
say no, and that their interpretation of the bible was in severe error
and not ultimately the best possible interpretation of the text. I'm
sure Sean and Bill would agree. Which means we've criticized the
theological beliefs of the inquisitors, which in your unique meaning
of the term means we persecuted them. According to your "fool proof"
test (TM Ray Martinez, below), that means they, and not the lily livered
peaceniks and liberal Christians the three of us prefer, are
incontrovertibly proven to be true Christians.


Finally, even though I disagree strongly with their interpretation of
the Bible, I consider it equally obvious, as a matter of historical
record, that they attempted to base their actions on the bible, and
considered it as authoritative - which makes them Christians, is very
bad ones, in my book.

As Thomas Aquinas said, based on 1 Corinthians 5:12 - 13, Deuteronomy
13 and 17, Numbers 25, Exodus 22 and the continuity clause to the New
Testament in Matthew 5:18, and in this context also Matthew 5:29-30:
"If forgers and other malefactors are put to death by the secular power,
there is much more reason for putting to death one convicted of heresy.

It's not the only possible interpretation of the Bible on the issue, and
I would say not the best supported by the text, but it is also
undeniable that it is a possible interpretation, and that the
Inquisitors and the society that overwhelmingly approved of them
sincerely believed that this was the case.

>
>>
>>>
>>> In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind.
>>
>> Two rather different issues mixed up here. The "ax to grind" case is
>> better suited for the argument you try to make. Yes, people sometimes
>> lie. But we have criteria for determining if this is likely the case.
>> This includes consistency over time and audiences, reasons to lie/to be
>> truthful, and yes, also consistency between actions and stated beliefs.
>> But all of these are in turn defeasible, and you need to evaluate the
>> totality of the evidence, and its respective strength.
>>
>> The mass murdered by contrast makes neither epistemological nor
>> theological sense, especially not for Protestants (for Catholics, the
>> doctrine of mortal sin complicates the issue a bit, but only a bit)
>
> Not sure what your point here, is?

I should have thought this is obvious. Why do you use mass murder as a
recurrent example? Theologically, you could just as well have used "fare
dodger" or "person envious of neighbour's house". But that would have
shown how absurd your reasoning is, wouldn't it? So you rather
compromise your theology.

>
>>
>> The theological problems are obvious, and I pointed them out to you
>> before - at which point I think you essentially agreed, but did not
>> realize that this is inconsistent with your line of argument. The core
>> tenet of Christianity is the ubiquity, but also the forgiveness of sin.
>> Everybody is a sinner, nobody beyond redemption. And in the eyes of God
>> all sins are equal....
>
> The situation as a whole suffers much harm by your summarizing and condensing.

No idea what that's supposed to mean. If you mean" I cut through your
crap and show just how bad your argument is by exposing its bare bones,
I plead guilty as charged.

>
>> ....(one of the more ethically problematic ideas, and the
>> RCC tried to wriggle out of it, but with little basis in scripture as
>> far as I can see).
>>
>> So if you single out mass murder, you are already on theologically shaky
>> grounds, "impure thoughts" would have worked just as well.
>
> I never said or implied that a mass murderer was beyond the grace of God. WHAT I'VE SAID is that a person is not following Christ when they are sinning, whether that sin is mass murder or impure thoughts.

And once again you are equivocating between "following Christ" and
"being a Christian. The latter is under dispute.

>
>> And by
>> undermining the idea that we are all inevitably sinners you undermine
>> the very foundations of Christianity.
>
> From the very beginning of these debates I've said that Adamkind is born separated from God with an inherited capacity to sin, and that every person, no exception, commits trespasses daily. Trespasses are divided up into two categories: sins of the flesh, and sins of the Spirit. Both categories combined can be said to encompass actual violations of God law to mere desire to violate God's law; and actual violations of spiritual laws of righteousness to mere desire to violate spiritual laws of righteousness. The variance seen is quite wide. Even the best performing Christian is far from perfect because we never fully escape the corruption of being born in Adam until we die and go to Heaven.

Yes, you keep saying that. And then in the very next sentence you make
statements that directly contradict this. In your account, Christians
don't sin, ever, because when you are sinning, you are not a Christian.
That directly contradicts the much more mainstream statement above. It
is this inconsistency that people keep pointing out

>
>> At worst, in your analysis nobody
>> ever was a Christian.
>
> Then you haven't understood anything I've said. Since you're an Atheist-Evolutionist, no surprise.

Sure, blame the listener instead of your incompetent communication and
warped ideas.

>
>> At best you get "oscillating Christians": Asleep:
>> a Christian. Woke up ad had bacon for breakfast: probably a Christian,
>> but depending if you can weasel out of Mathew 5:18. Starts reading
>> newspaper, all fine up to page 2 when an image of film star at Oscars
>> causes impure thoughts, at which point person becomes atheist. Reads on
>> to sport page and becomes a Christian again, until he reads about salary
>> of football star and briefly covets it - not a Christian at that point.
>> and so on and so forth through the day, so yo never know if someone is a
>> Christian at any given point in time.
>
> I've argued my claims using the Apostle Peter as an example: one moment he is walking with Christ, the next moment he isn't, the next moment he's walking again with Christ: it's in the Bible. The Bible says when Peter was not walking with Christ he was actually walking with Satan, if only for a moment, but it does say that.
>
> Notice in the above scenario departure from walking with Christ does not last for a long time, but for a moment.

Yah, so the number of Christians in that society as reduced for a split
second by one, then went back to the number before, and probably was
reduced and increased back several times over that day.

A rather obviously absurd consequence of your made-up theology. I mean,
I'm all in favour of people making their own religions, but it does
require some skills and ability for analytical thinking, so you should
probably leave that to the professionals.

Should be quite obvious, you just shy away from the analysis because it
exposes the deep-seated incoherence in your thinking.

You argue on the one hand that the Inquisition or any other horrific
acts having been committed historically by people who thought of
themselves as Christians couldn't possibly have been committed by "true
(TM Martinez) Christians, because of the evil that it brought. In doing
so you dismiss the reasons that they gave to excuse their actions, even
when based on Scripture.

And in the same breath, you yourself ask for mass killings of children
and civilians, and indeed not only justify it but took steps to bring it
about, however indirect. The excuses you make for this are of th every
same type that the Inquisition (or Hitler for that matter) used: yes,
there is a general prohibition of killing, but it does not apply here
for <insert feeble excuse> - in fact, you repeat one of the most hideous
excuses yourself ("killing innocent children is no big deal, as God will
let them into paradise - the same argument used by Beziers for the
massacre of the Cathars)

So a few hundred years from now, a future Ray-like person, when your
posts are brought up in a discussion on evils committed by Christians,
will full of self-righteous indignation ask: and what gives yo the ideas
that this Ray Martinez Character was a Christian? He asked for evil
things, and obviously everyone can post a sig on the Internet that says
"Paleayan creationists and protestant", that means nothing. Christ
forbids killing, so when this person voted for and cheered on a
president who killed hundreds of thousands of children when bombing
Teheran, he OBVIOUSLY was not a real Christian.

That future Ray will be as wrong as the present Ray. You are just a
textbook example for who exactly it happens that Christians, juts like
popel of all faith and none, can become perpetrators of evil.

>
>>
>> - being a mass murderer and not only saying that there was a legitimate
>> excuse, but indeed a divine command to do so. In this case it all
>> depends on how the argument is made, and if there is a genuine attempt
>> to base it on Scripture, even if I disagree with the interpretation.
>>
>> - being a mass murderer in open defiance of God, or because you think
>> there are no consequences. That and only that would mean you have now
>> adopted a line of thought that is indeed incompatible with being a
>> Christian.
>>
>> As others have pointed out, "being bad at being a Christian" and "none
>> being a Christian" are epistemological (and in Christianity also
>> theologically) 2 entirely different things
>
> Again, relevance?

Rather obviously on point. You confuse persistently a definition what it
means to be a Christian with criteria by which we judge if a person is
good at what they belief in.

Just like saying that someone isn't be a footballer, even if he runs
around in shorts n a team every Sunday, and trains every day, merely
because he never scores.

>
>>
>>
>>> The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ?
>>>
>> Yup, believing in his divinity etc.
>
> That's not the biblical criteria.

sure is. Romans 10:9, to be precise. Have you EVER actually read the Bible??

>The Bible says real followers of Christ will be treated as Christ was treated: they will suffer rejection and persecution for being a follower of Christ. Sorry, this particular criteria eliminates 99 percent of all so called Christians.

Indeed, and the only Christian remaining is you, of course. Which of the
sanity-based world means your definition is obviously wrong, and your
theology made up.

> The claim made visible in Paul. He was rejected by the then known church at the time while suffering persecution from church and secular alike for his theology.

Yeah, and the Chetniks and White Eagles and similar extremist
paramilitary groups who used mass murder and systematic rape of Muslim
women as tools of their genocide, under the sign of the Serbian Cross,
and the Motto of Saint Sava,"only unity saves the Serbs", felt
oppressed by the mainstream Church, under attack by Catholics and
Muslims alike, and of course after the war were prosecuted for and
convicted of war crimes and genocide by the secular authorities at the
Hague.

Which according to your "foolproof" criteria means they were the one
true Christians in this conflict after all.

>Notice that the mainstream church is NOT following Christ, led by James the epistle-writer, which explains and accounts for your Inquisitors and other manifestations of evil done under the appearance of hagiography.


>
> Nothing has changed today (the Bible remains true). The mainstream churches are NOT following the Christ of the Bible. In other words the majority, whether religious or secular, are following Satan, under his control. Protestantism has once again slipped back into heresy. We have departed the light of the Reformation, which was BORN when Luther suddenly came to the New Testament realization that "the just shall live by faith" (sola fide) and not by the dead works of compliance to a code of conduct, Mosaic law. When persons come into compliance with the gospel, sola fide, they meet the Risen Christ and eventually, if they continue in the faith, they become the object of rejection and persecution, which the Christian has no control over. Other people, secular and non-secular, prove who is walking with Christ via slander and other acts of persecution. This is a biblical criteria and it's foolproof, unlike a verbal profession criteria which anyone can perform.
>
> I hate to ring my own bell, but I am routinely slandered here by secular and non-secular alike. That's provable.

People laughed at Einstein, they also laughed at Bozo the clown.
Sometimes people get criticized unfairly, sometimes they get criticized
because they are insufferable arseholes. That you criticized so much, by
both sides indicates that you fairly and squarely fall into the latter
category.

>In fact, you began your reply by saying that you didn't know if Sean and others advocated a verbal profession criteria, then you said that you believe that I made it up and had lied. Note that you admitted that you didn't know if Sean had done such a thing,

So what? I made an inference based on the evidence of past behaviour,
and indicated as much. If someone were to post "Ray has said he fully
embraces evolution and said what finally convinced him was a paper on
population genetics with impeccable math", I would equally say that this
sounds so implausible and out of line with previous behaviour that this
in all likelihood is made up and a lie.

I know how Bill and Sean argue from past experience, and that would have
been equally out of line with expected behaviour.

but then you said you were confident that I made it up and lied (=
slander).

It would be libel or defamation, not slander, being written rather than
verbal. And anyhow, no it isn't. Firstly, it was true - and it was quite
easy to confirm by browsing through Sean's post - and as I had thought,
he corrected you several times on this, to the point of breaking usent
etiquette and gong all caps just to get through. So I have the veracity
defence.

And even without that, we are dealing here with what lawyers call
"opinion" - that is I stated the facts, and then indicated my inference
from them. Which again is exempted from libel law even f you disagree
with the inference

>Yep, I'm a real follower of Christ.

If this were true, so much the worse for Christianity Fortunately, it
isn't.

>Thank You for proving my arguments true.

Yes, you have a marked ability to define yourself correct. Sociopath are
very good at inventing excused for their behaviour, and you excel in it.
>
> Ray (Protestant Evangelical)

everyone can post this on the Internet - every heard of sheep in woolf's
clothing?

[Rolf Aalberg]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> skrev i melding
news:ov3pfi$el6$1...@dont-email.me...

Sound advice! Delete the 'probably'.

Rolf

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:33:41 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:17:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:53:50 -0800 (PST), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
>><seand...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
>>>> > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>>> > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >Ray
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
>>>>
>>>> Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.
>>>
>>>Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.
>>
>>....but not of Raytianity.
>
>
>That's a useful neologism, one worthy of The Urban Dictionary.

Thenkew, thenkew ver' mush. ;-)

Elvis may have left the building, but Ray has left reality.

>>>> > I even accept for
>>>> > argument's sake that having an ax to grind is a sin. And as sins,
>>>> > they show that people who commit these sins are not following Christ.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's axiomatic.
>>>
>>>They may not be "following Christ" in that moment, but they may still be a followER of Christ, in the general sense. Besides which: being a Christian is a matter of BELIEF, not a matter of BEHAVIOR.
>>>>
>>>> > Too bad there are so many other sins everybody does every day. Based
>>>> > on that, nobody can legitimately claim Christianity, and especially
>>>> > not those who say they don't sin.
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>>> >
>>>> > Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>> > Attributed to Voltaire
>>>>
>>>> All that I have ever said: When/while a person is sinning they are not a Christian or following Christ.
>>>
>>>Those are two different things. Yes, a person IS still a Christian while they are sinning. Their beliefs have not changed, therefore neither has their religious identity.
>>>
>>>>I showed this in the Bible via the Apostle Peter. One moment he was following Christ, the next moment he wasn't, then a moment later he was following again.
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>
>>>This is a radical over-interpretation of the story. Peter never ceases to be a follower of Christ. He merely makes a well-intentioned suggestion that Jesus doesn't like. Jesus doesn't like it because he is TEMPTED by that suggestion, which is why he reacts to the temptation by embodying it in the person of Satan. Whether or not Jesus actually believe the Devil was behind the suggestion, there is no reason to think Jesus doubted Peter's good intentions or commitment.
>>>
>>>I'm sorry, Ray, but this whole notion of whiplash, on-and-off Christians is profoundly absurd and blatantly self-serving. A Christian doesn't cease to be a Christian unless that person changes their beliefs. Christian sinners (also known as ALL Christians) are still Christians.
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:22:11 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:55:00 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
><r3p...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:20:03 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
>
>>> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 11:15:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>>> > In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic.
>
>....or you could wean yourself from that "horrendous"
>GurgleGropes...
>
>>> > In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob >> > C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>
>>> NOPE! That is NOT what Sean has argued. Sean has argued that a Christian is any person who BELIEVES in the fundamental fact-claims of Christianity (which are pretty neatly laid out in the Apostles Creed).
>
>>WHOOSH!
>>
>>One must SAY they believe thus your criteria is verbal belief just like I said. There's no other way, by your criteria, to know who believes? except if they SAY they believe.
>
>So, Ray, how do we know you are a Christian? You verbalize
>it frequently, but your actions contradict Christ's
>teaching, so I guess you're not a Christian at all, right?

[Crickets...]

As usual for Ray's "Duh!" moments.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:27:15 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:50:52 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>><r3p...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>>>
>>>In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
>>
>>Just two questions, Ray...
>>
>>Was Torquemada a Christian?
>>
>>Was Arnaud Amalric a Christian?
>
>C'mon, Ray, they're not *that* hard to answer.

[Crickets...]

It's really tough when reality bites you in the butt, isn't
it?

According to Ray, everyone sins and no one sinning is a
Christian, therefore there are no Christians, specifically
including the two cited above. Or maybe no Christian can
sin. Or something; it's really hard to keep up with all the
90-degree turns...

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 4:15:06 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 4:55:03 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> >>
> >>
> >> This seems to have been on one of the OT threads that I did not follow,
> >> but I'm reasonably certain that neither argued this.
> >
> > They did indeed.
>
> Well, I just browsed through the thread, and they did indeed not. And
> Sean in particular did in fact contradict you explicitly several times
> when you made that claim, so you can hardly plead ignorance. As I

> surmised, they say that everyone who does belief [sic] in the divinity of
> Christ is Christian

SHEESH! That's what I said! I subsequently described the same as a verbal profession criteria. It's hard to fathom what you don't understand?

> (that is the definition) and that the expression os
> but one indicator of what a person believes (the diagnostic test).
>
> >
> >> Which one could say
> >> makes you a liar, which might be a sin - does it follow from this alone
> >> that you aren't a Christian?
> >
> > Burk expresses disbelief that anyone could argue verbal profession as a criteria to establish their Christianity. I agree; it's manifestly loony. I've been pounding away at this nonsense. Again, anyone can recite the Apostle's Creed or verbalize belief in the Divinity of Christ, anyone.
> >
> And as I said,nobody argued that this is an unrebuttabe inference, that
> is either only in your mind, or an intentional lie on your side.

Sean initiated the Apostle's Creed and mere verbal profession in the Divinity of Christ as determining Christianity. And Sean has maintained his claim. Never did Sean say as you say above. You're placing words in Sean's mouth hoping he will appear and say "that's what I meant" which in itself shows that Sean never said it. You began these exchanges between us by admitting that you didn't follow the relevant topic thus you didn't know what Sean argued. Then in this context you called me a liar----not knowing the facts. Now you admit that Sean said it while adding the face-saving caveat that what Sean said was argued as not foolproof when in fact he said no such thing----you added that caveat, not Sean.

Absent a factual basis, you began by calling me a liar. Thus you've unknowingly fulfilled the biblical criteria I have argued as establishing a genuine Christian: persecution, which subsumes slander. You slandered me without any basis in fact ADMITTEDLY. And you did so prior to me unveiling the biblical criteria for establishing a genuine Christian. I did not, in fact, lie. Sean did advocate a verbal profession criteria and he said nothing about exceptions or any other synonymous concept----you added that face-saving dimension after the fact, not Sean.

> >
> >>
> >> Now, my guess is that what they argued was instead that s) it is the
> >> beliefs specified in the Creed that define membership in the Christian
> >> community (rather than any other old belief, or a person's external
> >> actions - sola fide and all that) and b) that since nobody knows better
> >> what you believe than you, a person's verbal ascent to these creeds is
> >> strong....
> >
> > Now Burk contradicts the spirit of what he just said----that no one in their right mind could advocate a verbal profession criteria to establish genuine status as a Christian. SHEESH! AGAIN, ANYONE can recite a creed: an actor or actress, or lawyer, or a child molester, or mass murderer, or even the town drunk.
>
> Yes, everyone "could" But normally people don't.

How do you know? How do you know they are sincere AND correct?

> That is we tend to
> believe people unless we have reasons not to. The only reason I or
> everyone else here has to believe you are a Christian are your words, in
> particular your overlong signature. "Could" be that you are an atheist
> and lying all the time - you sure are very efficient at making
> Christians look stupid and immoral, and your knowledge of the Bible is
> flaky at best (you seem to confuse it in parts with Plato's Timaeus -
> but despite all this, for now I give you the benefit of the doubt and
> accept you are a Christian, if one of a fringe belief. All just based on
> your words.

A rant thinly disguised as an argument. I need only remind that Burk is an Atheist, and I am a Bible-believing Protestant Christian.

>
> >
> >> ....but of course rebuttable evidence for actually holding such a
> >> belief. (rebuttable means the inference can be defeated if there is
> >> strong counter evidence) Which is of course not only theologically
> >> sound, but in line with Christian practice through the ages, from the
> >> public affirmation of the Creed during mass/Holy communion....
> >
> > Mass; communion in church via a round wafer for certain congregants that had complied with other man-made doctrines.
>
> Well, for starters holy communion is what the Lutheran church I grew up
> in called their equivalent of the catholic mass, so there you go wrong
> right away.

Yes, that's the one major area of RC that Luther left alone and intact.

>
> And apart from that , my text made clear that I used it merely as an
> example of public and communal practices that are an additional
> criterion to establish if someone is a Christian, and these exist in
> various forms in all Christian communities, based on Matthew 18:20

Anyone can participate in religious rites including secular. Bill Rogers admitted to me that sometimes he sings in a Christian choir. I doubt if the group knows he is a card-carrying Atheist.

> >
> > These are NOT biblical practices or Protestantism, but rites that the Roman church adopted from secular society and grafted into their worship.
>
> Ah yes, I forgot, in Ray world Catholics aren't Christians either. In
> fact, nobody is a Christian but Ray.

Great example of a non-sequitur suddenly bursting forth from a preexisting Atheist bias. I criticized ***the institution*** as a Protestant, which is perfectly legitimate, and anything but abnormal. The Reformation began as a protest of the RCC and its abominable anti-biblical practices. We excommunicated them for blasphemy long ago. Don't forget that.

>
> > When Christ instituted communion during the Last Supper, His blood was in His body and His flesh covered His bones. He distributed broken bread and real wine. None of this, though, determines Christianity because ANYONE can take communion or attend a church service.
>
> Sure, everyone can. And some people who are Christians can't. Which
> means that just as I said it is one piece of evidence, that like all
> other forms of evidence can be rebutted by stronger counter evidence, in
> this case you'd have the burden to show that the person in question was
> indeed possessed by demons etc.
>
>
>
> > In the New Testament demon-possessed persons attended religious services.
> >
> >> ....to the
> >> emphasis countries with a Christian state church like the England put at
> >> various times the "test oaths" to determine heresies.
> >
> > So all one had to do was lie to escape a horrible death?
>
> Yes, very much so. Though for most of the time, it was enough to escape
> crippling fines, exclusion from public office, prohibition to attend
> university, confiscation of your property etc. Horrible deaths were
> reserved for catholic priests - and they too needed nothing more but to
> say the words, even if it was seconds before they got publicly
> disemboweled or squeezed to death with rocks placed on a wooden door
> etc. The protestant torturers were every bid as innovative as their
> catholic counterparts in Spain.

The situation here is quite different. It was mainly about bowing to the authority of Church hierarchy publicly and the message that it sent. Since you admit the point----anyone can lie to save their life, a public profession obtained by coercion, under threat of losing one's life, does not constitute or determine genuine Christianity.

>
> >
> >>
> >> Indeed, quite often when the christian churches veered away from the
> >> principle that public declaration of faith was a sound way to establish
> >> membership in the Church, brutality followed - that was after all the
> >> trigger for the inquisition: the authorities distrusted the expressed
> >> statements of converted Jews, and tried to find out what the truly"
> >> believed - by tearing them limb from limb.
> >
> > Where did you obtain the idea that the Inquisitors were following New Testament teachings or doctrine? ANYONE can claim to speak for Christ or don a robe embroidered with a cross. Ever heard of the New Testament concept "wolf in sheep's clothing"?
> >
> Well, first you are once again missing the point. I brought up the
> Inquisitors because they fully agree with you.

Ridiculous. How?

> The inquisition started
> because of the feeling that "everybody can merely profess to claim a
> Christian" and if you challenged that, you'd be asked if you every heard
> of a wolf in sheep's clothing". Before the inquisition, Jews that
> professed to have converted were left in peace, but people who thought
> exactly like you decided that that was just not good enough, and the
> "true" belief had to be established.

By torture, right? That's anti-Christ.

>
> As for whether the Inquisition did follow Christ's teaching , I would

> say no....

Finally!

> ....and that their interpretation of the bible was in severe error

> and not ultimately the best possible interpretation of the text. I'm
> sure Sean and Bill would agree. Which means we've criticized the
> theological beliefs of the inquisitors, which in your unique meaning
> of the term means we persecuted them. According to your "fool proof"
> test (TM Ray Martinez, below), that means they, and not the lily livered
> peaceniks and liberal Christians the three of us prefer, are
> incontrovertibly proven to be true Christians.

You just admitted, above, that the Inquisitors were not following the teachings of Christ. Thus your criticism does not constitute persecution for following Christ. I have always said the Inquisitors were not Christians. That was my original claim----the very claim that caused closet Atheist Peter "Lyikos" Nyikos to go ballistic, remember?

>
>
> Finally, even though I disagree strongly with their interpretation of
> the Bible, I consider it equally obvious, as a matter of historical
> record, that they attempted to base their actions on the bible, and
> considered it as authoritative - which makes them Christians, is very
> bad ones, in my book.

"Christian" presupposes good; therefore "bad Christian" can only mean "not Christian." Killing people for not following Christ is clearly anti-Christ and anti-New Testament.

Ray

[snip for now....]

[Bill Rogers]

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 6:40:05 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
<snip>

> Anyone can participate in religious rites including secular. Bill Rogers admitted to me that sometimes he sings in a Christian choir. I doubt if the group knows he is a card-carrying Atheist.

<snip>

They know that I'm an atheist, but tenors are in short supply. I don't have an Atheist card to carry, though. I'll have to check with the Home Office - perhaps it was lost in the mail.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 4:15:06 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 4:55:03 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This seems to have been on one of the OT threads that I did not follow,
>>>> but I'm reasonably certain that neither argued this.
>>>
>>> They did indeed.
>>
>> Well, I just browsed through the thread, and they did indeed not. And
>> Sean in particular did in fact contradict you explicitly several times
>> when you made that claim, so you can hardly plead ignorance. As I
>> surmised, they say that everyone who does belief [sic] in the divinity of
>> Christ is Christian
>
> SHEESH! That's what I said! I subsequently described the same as a verbal profession criteria. It's hard to fathom what you don't understand?

As I and others have pointed out frequently: "I believe in X" and "I say
I believe in X" are two very different sentences. Minimal competence in
English is sufficient to see this. So if you smuggle the "verbal
profession" into what people say, you falsify their statement, a.k.a.
you lie about what they say.

>
>> (that is the definition) and that the expression os
>> but one indicator of what a person believes (the diagnostic test).
>>
>>>
>>>> Which one could say
>>>> makes you a liar, which might be a sin - does it follow from this alone
>>>> that you aren't a Christian?
>>>
>>> Burk expresses disbelief that anyone could argue verbal profession as a criteria to establish their Christianity. I agree; it's manifestly loony. I've been pounding away at this nonsense. Again, anyone can recite the Apostle's Creed or verbalize belief in the Divinity of Christ, anyone.
>>>
>> And as I said,nobody argued that this is an unrebuttabe inference, that
>> is either only in your mind, or an intentional lie on your side.
>
> Sean initiated the Apostle's Creed and mere verbal profession in the Divinity of Christ as determining Christianity. And Sean has maintained his claim. Never did Sean say as you say above.

he said it here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/T-rVjEz49Rk/0_Ok83WJCwAJ
and here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/T-rVjEz49Rk/L62H-lttCwAJ
and here
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/T-rVjEz49Rk/e6iaPudtCwAJ
and here

>You're placing words in Sean's mouth hoping he will appear and say
"that's what I meant" which in itself shows that Sean never said it. You
began these exchanges between us by admitting that you didn't follow the
relevant topic thus you didn't know what Sean argued. Then in this
context you called me a liar----not knowing the facts. Now you admit
that Sean said it while adding the face-saving caveat that what Sean
said was argued as not foolproof when in fact he said no such
thing----you added that caveat, not Sean.

It has been consistently in his posts, see above links.

>
> Absent a factual basis, you began by calling me a liar.

I had all the factual basis necessary: lots of past posts from Sean
which shows hos reasoning is well informed, analytic and knows the
difference between ontology and epistemology. And even longer exposure
to posts from you that show how you twist, misrepresent and distort what
people say whom you disagree with.

The rest is a pretty sound inductive inference, which lo and behold
turns out correct.

> Thus you've unknowingly fulfilled the biblical criteria I have argued as establishing a genuine Christian: persecution, which subsumes slander. You slandered me without any basis in fact ADMITTEDLY.

I had all the facts I needed and was spot on.
And if you poor little snowflake really think being called out on your
unacceptable behaviour in "persecution" that equates to that of the
christian martyrs, then you have invented a totally new form of
blasphemy to boot.

And you did so prior to me unveiling the biblical criteria for
establishing a genuine Christian. I did not, in fact, lie. Sean did
advocate a verbal profession criteria and he said nothing about
exceptions or any other synonymous concept

he sure did, in at least four post that took me all of 5 min to find,
and he never, not a single time, said what you claim he said.

----you added that face-saving dimension after the fact, not Sean.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, my guess is that what they argued was instead that s) it is the
>>>> beliefs specified in the Creed that define membership in the Christian
>>>> community (rather than any other old belief, or a person's external
>>>> actions - sola fide and all that) and b) that since nobody knows better
>>>> what you believe than you, a person's verbal ascent to these creeds is
>>>> strong....
>>>
>>> Now Burk contradicts the spirit of what he just said----that no one in their right mind could advocate a verbal profession criteria to establish genuine status as a Christian. SHEESH! AGAIN, ANYONE can recite a creed: an actor or actress, or lawyer, or a child molester, or mass murderer, or even the town drunk.
>>
>> Yes, everyone "could" But normally people don't.
>
> How do you know? How do you know they are sincere AND correct?

Considerable life experience? If I ask people for the time, I typically
believe their answer. If I ask guests what their favourite dish is, I
cook what they answered.

We believe people unless we have good reasons to disbelief them,
everything else would indeed be defamatory.

I don't need to "know" they are correct, I only have to accept a persons
word as good evidence until proven otherwise.

>
>> That is we tend to
>> believe people unless we have reasons not to. The only reason I or
>> everyone else here has to believe you are a Christian are your words, in
>> particular your overlong signature. "Could" be that you are an atheist
>> and lying all the time - you sure are very efficient at making
>> Christians look stupid and immoral, and your knowledge of the Bible is
>> flaky at best (you seem to confuse it in parts with Plato's Timaeus -
>> but despite all this, for now I give you the benefit of the doubt and
>> accept you are a Christian, if one of a fringe belief. All just based on
>> your words.
>
> A rant thinly disguised as an argument.

Inability to refute the argument noted Andy ou still haven;t told anyone
where in the Bible you found the submerged continent.

>
I need only remind that Burk is an Atheist, and I am a Bible-believing
Protestant Christian.

You claim to be a Bible believing Christian. Now normally I take a
person's word until there is evidence to the contrary. You claima things
about the Bible that nobody else had ever been able to find is one such
counter evidence, as is your tendency to invent totally new theological
doctrines on the hoof whenever you think it suits you.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> ....but of course rebuttable evidence for actually holding such a
>>>> belief. (rebuttable means the inference can be defeated if there is
>>>> strong counter evidence) Which is of course not only theologically
>>>> sound, but in line with Christian practice through the ages, from the
>>>> public affirmation of the Creed during mass/Holy communion....
>>>
>>> Mass; communion in church via a round wafer for certain congregants that had complied with other man-made doctrines.
>>
>> Well, for starters holy communion is what the Lutheran church I grew up
>> in called their equivalent of the catholic mass, so there you go wrong
>> right away.
>
> Yes, that's the one major area of RC that Luther left alone and intact.

So with other words you were wrong when you tried to rebut my argument
as catholic heresy.

>
>>
>> And apart from that , my text made clear that I used it merely as an
>> example of public and communal practices that are an additional
>> criterion to establish if someone is a Christian, and these exist in
>> various forms in all Christian communities, based on Matthew 18:20
>
> Anyone can participate in religious rites including secular.

Yes, and I explicitly said that myself. And it sill is very good
additional evidence, especially if it happens consistently and over
extend periods of time.

That evidence is rebuttable (all evidence is) does not mean it is not
evidence.

> Bill Rogers admitted to me that sometimes he sings in a Christian choir. I doubt if the group knows he is a card-carrying Atheist.
>
>>>
>>> These are NOT biblical practices or Protestantism, but rites that the Roman church adopted from secular society and grafted into their worship.
>>
>> Ah yes, I forgot, in Ray world Catholics aren't Christians either. In
>> fact, nobody is a Christian but Ray.
>
> Great example of a non-sequitur suddenly bursting forth from a preexisting Atheist bias. I criticized ***the institution*** as a Protestant, which is perfectly legitimate, and anything but abnormal. The Reformation began as a protest of the RCC and its abominable anti-biblical practices. We excommunicated them for blasphemy long ago. Don't forget that.

I did not forget it, my entire point is based on it - you
"excommunicated" them, that is you decided that they are not part of the
Christian community, that's what the word means.

>
>>
>>> When Christ instituted communion during the Last Supper, His blood was in His body and His flesh covered His bones. He distributed broken bread and real wine. None of this, though, determines Christianity because ANYONE can take communion or attend a church service.
>>
>> Sure, everyone can. And some people who are Christians can't. Which
>> means that just as I said it is one piece of evidence, that like all
>> other forms of evidence can be rebutted by stronger counter evidence, in
>> this case you'd have the burden to show that the person in question was
>> indeed possessed by demons etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>> In the New Testament demon-possessed persons attended religious services.
>>>
>>>> ....to the
>>>> emphasis countries with a Christian state church like the England put at
>>>> various times the "test oaths" to determine heresies.
>>>
>>> So all one had to do was lie to escape a horrible death?
>>
>> Yes, very much so. Though for most of the time, it was enough to escape
>> crippling fines, exclusion from public office, prohibition to attend
>> university, confiscation of your property etc. Horrible deaths were
>> reserved for catholic priests - and they too needed nothing more but to
>> say the words, even if it was seconds before they got publicly
>> disemboweled or squeezed to death with rocks placed on a wooden door
>> etc. The protestant torturers were every bid as innovative as their
>> catholic counterparts in Spain.
>
> The situation here is quite different.

where is "here"?

>It was mainly about bowing to the authority of Church hierarchy publicly and the message that it sent. Since you admit the point----anyone can lie to save their life, a public profession obtained by coercion, under threat of losing one's life, does not constitute or determine genuine Christianity.

It was good enough for these people. But I assume you also exclude King
James (as in "King Jame's Bible) who ordered these killings form the
list of Christians.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, quite often when the christian churches veered away from the
>>>> principle that public declaration of faith was a sound way to establish
>>>> membership in the Church, brutality followed - that was after all the
>>>> trigger for the inquisition: the authorities distrusted the expressed
>>>> statements of converted Jews, and tried to find out what the truly"
>>>> believed - by tearing them limb from limb.
>>>
>>> Where did you obtain the idea that the Inquisitors were following New Testament teachings or doctrine? ANYONE can claim to speak for Christ or don a robe embroidered with a cross. Ever heard of the New Testament concept "wolf in sheep's clothing"?
>>>
>> Well, first you are once again missing the point. I brought up the
>> Inquisitors because they fully agree with you.
>
> Ridiculous. How?

.. is explained the very next sentence As I pointed out before, you
really should read an entire paragraph before picking individual
sentences out of context.

>
>> The inquisition started
>> because of the feeling that "everybody can merely profess to claim a
>> Christian" and if you challenged that, you'd be asked if you every heard
>> of a wolf in sheep's clothing". Before the inquisition, Jews that
>> professed to have converted were left in peace, but people who thought
>> exactly like you decided that that was just not good enough, and the
>> "true" belief had to be established.
>
> By torture, right? That's anti-Christ.

So you say. I would agree, They would not. And they were using Scripture
as a basis for their belief.

>
>>
>> As for whether the Inquisition did follow Christ's teaching , I would
>> say no....
>
> Finally!
>
>> ....and that their interpretation of the bible was in severe error
>> and not ultimately the best possible interpretation of the text. I'm
>> sure Sean and Bill would agree. Which means we've criticized the
>> theological beliefs of the inquisitors, which in your unique meaning
>> of the term means we persecuted them. According to your "fool proof"
>> test (TM Ray Martinez, below), that means they, and not the lily livered
>> peaceniks and liberal Christians the three of us prefer, are
>> incontrovertibly proven to be true Christians.
>
> You just admitted, above, that the Inquisitors were not following the teachings of Christ.

No, you really need to read more carefully. I said that they were not
following the teaching of Christ as I would interpret them. Do you
suddenly make me the final arbiter of the teaching of Christ?

> Thus your criticism does not constitute persecution for following
Christ. I have always said the Inquisitors were not Christians.

so you persecuted them? Does that make them true Christians (TM Ray
Martinez)

> That was my original claim----the very claim that caused closet Atheist Peter "Lyikos" Nyikos to go ballistic, remember?
>
>>
>>
>> Finally, even though I disagree strongly with their interpretation of
>> the Bible, I consider it equally obvious, as a matter of historical
>> record, that they attempted to base their actions on the bible, and
>> considered it as authoritative - which makes them Christians, is very
>> bad ones, in my book.
>
> "Christian" presupposes good;

only in Ray world

>therefore "bad Christian" can only mean "not Christian." Killing people for not following Christ is clearly anti-Christ and anti-New Testament.

So as when you propose to bomb Tehran?

>
> Ray
>
> [snip for now....]
>

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:15:02 AM UTC-8, Ernest Major wrote:

> On 20/11/2017 05:11, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>

> I would take both a broader and a narrower view. Broader, in that there
> are Christians who don't, for example, believe in the divinity of Christ
> (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians), and narrower, in that I'd
> require the profession to be sincere.
>
> So a Christian is anyone who sincerely claims to be a Christian.
>

Your standard allows for Hitler to have been a genuine Christian. And I can't fathom anyone who professes them self as a Christian to not be sincere. So your criteria allows for anyone to be a genuine Christian, which in turn exposes the fact that a criteria has not been established.

> >
> > In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> >

> You are equivocating between being a Christian and being a follower of
> Christ.

Not true; "being a Christian" is intended to mean "following Christ."

> You're claims to be a Christian are not fully convincing, since
> you regularly define Christian in a way to exclude yourself, but I am
> willing to provisionally accept that you are a Christian. On the other
> hand I don't consider you a follower of Christ.

You need to provide examples in support of these claims.

>
> I would not agree with a claim that whether being a Christian is exempt
> from normal evidentiary standards; whether someone claims to be a
> Christian is easily tested, and whether they are sincere is also
> something for which there can be evidence.
>

Yes, then we basically agree.

Ray
> >
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

On 23/11/2017 04:18, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:15:02 AM UTC-8, Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 20/11/2017 05:11, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>>
>> I would take both a broader and a narrower view. Broader, in that there
>> are Christians who don't, for example, believe in the divinity of Christ
>> (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians), and narrower, in that I'd
>> require the profession to be sincere.
>>
>> So a Christian is anyone who sincerely claims to be a Christian.
>>
>
> Your standard allows for Hitler to have been a genuine Christian. And I can't fathom anyone who professes them self as a Christian to not be sincere. So your criteria allows for anyone to be a genuine Christian, which in turn exposes the fact that a criteria has not been established.

My standard also allows for Donald Trump, Roy Moore, Paul Ryan, Ante
Pavelić, Francisco Franco, Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ray Martinez
to be Christians.

My standard does not allow anyone to be a genuine Christian. It excludes
Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Siddhārtha Gautama, Confucius, Maimonides and
Omar Khayyam.

>
>>>
>>> In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
>>>
>> You are equivocating between being a Christian and being a follower of
>> Christ.
>
> Not true; "being a Christian" is intended to mean "following Christ."
>
>> You're claims to be a Christian are not fully convincing, since
>> you regularly define Christian in a way to exclude yourself, but I am
>> willing to provisionally accept that you are a Christian. On the other
>> hand I don't consider you a follower of Christ.
>
> You need to provide examples in support of these claims.

Just above you claim that being a Christian means following Christ. You
also claim that Christian believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, which
you deny.

[Ernest Major]

PS: One first reading I missed that you're contradicting your previous
claims. You have argued that Hitler was "obviously insincere" in his
professions of Christianity; now you say that you can't fathom him being
insincere.

[Sean Dillon]

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 10:20:05 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:15:02 AM UTC-8, Ernest Major wrote:
> > On 20/11/2017 05:11, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> >
> > I would take both a broader and a narrower view. Broader, in that there
> > are Christians who don't, for example, believe in the divinity of Christ
> > (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians), and narrower, in that I'd
> > require the profession to be sincere.
> >
> > So a Christian is anyone who sincerely claims to be a Christian.
> >
>
> Your standard allows for Hitler to have been a genuine Christian. And I can't fathom anyone who professes them self as a Christian to not be sincere. So your criteria allows for anyone to be a genuine Christian, which in turn exposes the fact that a criteria has not been established.
>
> > >
> > > In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> > >
> > You are equivocating between being a Christian and being a follower of
> > Christ.
>
> Not true; "being a Christian" is intended to mean "following Christ."

Nope! A Christian is intended to mean a believer in Christianity. That's really the crux of this entire argument, Ray: your blatantly self-serving and ludicrous definition of "Christian."

[Sean Dillon]

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 5:40:05 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 4:15:06 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 4:55:03 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> > >> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > >>> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This seems to have been on one of the OT threads that I did not follow,
> > >> but I'm reasonably certain that neither argued this.
> > >
> > > They did indeed.
> >
> > Well, I just browsed through the thread, and they did indeed not. And
> > Sean in particular did in fact contradict you explicitly several times
> > when you made that claim, so you can hardly plead ignorance. As I
> > surmised, they say that everyone who does belief [sic] in the divinity of
> > Christ is Christian
>
> SHEESH! That's what I said! I subsequently described the same as a verbal profession criteria. It's hard to fathom what you don't understand?
>
> > (that is the definition) and that the expression os
> > but one indicator of what a person believes (the diagnostic test).
> >
> > >
> > >> Which one could say
> > >> makes you a liar, which might be a sin - does it follow from this alone
> > >> that you aren't a Christian?
> > >
> > > Burk expresses disbelief that anyone could argue verbal profession as a criteria to establish their Christianity. I agree; it's manifestly loony. I've been pounding away at this nonsense. Again, anyone can recite the Apostle's Creed or verbalize belief in the Divinity of Christ, anyone.
> > >
> > And as I said,nobody argued that this is an unrebuttabe inference, that
> > is either only in your mind, or an intentional lie on your side.
>
> Sean initiated the Apostle's Creed and mere verbal profession in the Divinity of Christ as determining Christianity. And Sean has maintained his claim. Never did Sean say as you say above. You're placing words in Sean's mouth hoping he will appear and say "that's what I meant" which in itself shows that Sean never said it. You began these exchanges between us by admitting that you didn't follow the relevant topic thus you didn't know what Sean argued. Then in this context you called me a liar----not knowing the facts. Now you admit that Sean said it while adding the face-saving caveat that what Sean said was argued as not foolproof when in fact he said no such thing----you added that caveat, not Sean.

No. No I did not. I cited BELIEF, not verbalization, as the determinant of a person's Christianity. If you believe in the tenets of Christianity, you are a Christian, whether or not you ever verbalize it. Not only have I not "maintained" the claim you are trying to put in my mouth, but I have repeatedly and actively denied it.

>
> Absent a factual basis, you began by calling me a liar. Thus you've unknowingly fulfilled the biblical criteria I have argued as establishing a genuine Christian: persecution, which subsumes slander. You slandered me without any basis in fact ADMITTEDLY. And you did so prior to me unveiling the biblical criteria for establishing a genuine Christian. I did not, in fact, lie. Sean did advocate a verbal profession criteria and he said nothing about exceptions or any other synonymous concept----you added that face-saving dimension after the fact, not Sean.

No I did not. Not only did I not, I actively pointed out that I did not.

>
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Now, my guess is that what they argued was instead that s) it is the
> > >> beliefs specified in the Creed that define membership in the Christian
> > >> community (rather than any other old belief, or a person's external
> > >> actions - sola fide and all that) and b) that since nobody knows better
> > >> what you believe than you, a person's verbal ascent to these creeds is
> > >> strong....
> > >
> > > Now Burk contradicts the spirit of what he just said----that no one in their right mind could advocate a verbal profession criteria to establish genuine status as a Christian. SHEESH! AGAIN, ANYONE can recite a creed: an actor or actress, or lawyer, or a child molester, or mass murderer, or even the town drunk.
> >
> > Yes, everyone "could" But normally people don't.
>
> How do you know? How do you know they are sincere AND correct?
>
> > That is we tend to
> > believe people unless we have reasons not to. The only reason I or
> > everyone else here has to believe you are a Christian are your words, in
> > particular your overlong signature. "Could" be that you are an atheist
> > and lying all the time - you sure are very efficient at making
> > Christians look stupid and immoral, and your knowledge of the Bible is
> > flaky at best (you seem to confuse it in parts with Plato's Timaeus -
> > but despite all this, for now I give you the benefit of the doubt and
> > accept you are a Christian, if one of a fringe belief. All just based on
> > your words.
>
> A rant thinly disguised as an argument. I need only remind that Burk is an Atheist, and I am a Bible-believing Protestant Christian.

Not by your own definition you're not, since you are actively engaged in the sin of deceit.

Nope. Christian does not presuppose good. Christian only presupposes that a person believes in Christianity.

>
> Ray
>
> [snip for now....]

[Ray Martinez]

Yes, I haven't denied. What I've said in response I will say again: How does anyone know if a person is a believer? Answer: By verbal profession, so these are one in the same.

> If you believe in the tenets of Christianity, you are a Christian, whether or not you ever verbalize it.
>

But the issue before us is how anyone else comes to know how any given person is a Christian? Your answer has been belief in the Divinity and teachings of Christ. In response I've said that can only occur by verbal profession, and I've said verbal profession can be faked. Anyone can profess Christianity.

> Not only have I not "maintained" the claim you are trying to put in my mouth, but I have repeatedly and actively denied it.
>
>
> >
> > Absent a factual basis, you began by calling me a liar. Thus you've unknowingly fulfilled the biblical criteria I have argued as establishing a genuine Christian: persecution, which subsumes slander. You slandered me without any basis in fact ADMITTEDLY. And you did so prior to me unveiling the biblical criteria for establishing a genuine Christian. I did not, in fact, lie. Sean did advocate a verbal profession criteria and he said nothing about exceptions or any other synonymous concept----you added that face-saving dimension after the fact, not Sean.
>
> No I did not. Not only did I not, I actively pointed out that I did not.
>

Did not do what exactly?

> >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Now, my guess is that what they argued was instead that s) it is the
> > > >> beliefs specified in the Creed that define membership in the Christian
> > > >> community (rather than any other old belief, or a person's external
> > > >> actions - sola fide and all that) and b) that since nobody knows better
> > > >> what you believe than you, a person's verbal ascent to these creeds is
> > > >> strong....
> > > >
> > > > Now Burk contradicts the spirit of what he just said----that no one in their right mind could advocate a verbal profession criteria to establish genuine status as a Christian. SHEESH! AGAIN, ANYONE can recite a creed: an actor or actress, or lawyer, or a child molester, or mass murderer, or even the town drunk.
> > >
> > > Yes, everyone "could" But normally people don't.
> >
> > How do you know? How do you know they are sincere AND correct?
> >
> > > That is we tend to
> > > believe people unless we have reasons not to. The only reason I or
> > > everyone else here has to believe you are a Christian are your words, in
> > > particular your overlong signature. "Could" be that you are an atheist
> > > and lying all the time - you sure are very efficient at making
> > > Christians look stupid and immoral, and your knowledge of the Bible is
> > > flaky at best (you seem to confuse it in parts with Plato's Timaeus -
> > > but despite all this, for now I give you the benefit of the doubt and
> > > accept you are a Christian, if one of a fringe belief. All just based on
> > > your words.
> >
> > A rant thinly disguised as an argument. I need only remind that Burk is an Atheist, and I am a Bible-believing Protestant Christian.
>
> Not by your own definition you're not, since you are actively engaged in the sin of deceit.
>

If that were true Sean most certainly would not have asserted.

That means any person can be considered a Christian, anyone can jump through your hoop including persons that hate Christianity----that which the Bible calls "wolves in sheep's clothing." Since your criteria has no mechanism to determine the truth it is counterfeit.

Ray

> >
> > Ray
> >
> > [snip for now....]

[Ray Martinez]

If that were true Mark surely would have taken the time to clearly support his claim.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

Actually, you denied EXACTLY that. You said that my position was that verbal profession of the Divinity of Christ determines whether one is Christian. That is absolutely untrue.

Whether one IS a Christian is a totally separate issue from whether the rest of us KNOW that person is a Christian. The only qualification for BEING a Christian is that one BELIEVES the central tenets of belief of Christianity (I have repeated cited the general form of the Apostles Creed as a pretty solid short-list of those tenets). If a person ACTUALLY BELIEVES those tenets, one IS a Christan, regardless of how one BEHAVES.

So let's look at the separate question of how WE, from the OUTSIDE, might guess at whether a person is a Christian. First, we need to recognize that we CANNOT know with certainty in most cases. Because we do not have access to other people's thoughts, the only way we can know for certain that a person is NOT a Christian is if that person could not possibly be aware OF Christianity. Short of that, we're really just taking our best educated guess, based on the evidence.

Having determined that one CAN believe in the tenets of Christianity (and therefore be a Christian) while still doing shitty or sinful things, we simply cannot use the shittiness/sinfulness of one's behavior as a sound evidence for or against our GUESS at whether a person is a Christian. So what WOULD we look for? Basically, we're looking for:

A) Has the person stated or otherwise indicated a belief in Christianity? If not, there is no especial reason to suppose they are. I mean, they might be, but its really anybody's guess.

B) Has the person stated or otherwise indicated elsewhere that they subscribe to a non-Christian religious position? If so, we need to examine the specifics. Was this a change of heart, a misunderstanding, are the beliefs really compatible after all, or was the person lying about one or both religious claims?

C) Has the person expressed their Christianity only in situations where they were under duress, or where statements benefitted them materially? This doesn't rule out that a person is a Christian, but it certainly suggests the possibility of alterior motives, and bears further examination.

Please note that, while Hitler passes test A, he comes under strong scrutiny under B and C. From an outside perspective, we can say that, based on what we know, the legitimacy of Hitler's Christianity is very much in doubt.

>
> > If you believe in the tenets of Christianity, you are a Christian, whether or not you ever verbalize it.
> >
>
> But the issue before us is how anyone else comes to know how any given person is a Christian? Your answer has been belief in the Divinity and teachings of Christ. In response I've said that can only occur by verbal profession, and I've said verbal profession can be faked. Anyone can profess Christianity.

Yes, anyone COULD verbally profess belief in Christianity falsely. But in the vast majority of cases, there is simply no basis to jump to that conclusion, other than wishful thinking.

>
> > Not only have I not "maintained" the claim you are trying to put in my mouth, but I have repeatedly and actively denied it.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Absent a factual basis, you began by calling me a liar. Thus you've unknowingly fulfilled the biblical criteria I have argued as establishing a genuine Christian: persecution, which subsumes slander. You slandered me without any basis in fact ADMITTEDLY. And you did so prior to me unveiling the biblical criteria for establishing a genuine Christian. I did not, in fact, lie. Sean did advocate a verbal profession criteria and he said nothing about exceptions or any other synonymous concept----you added that face-saving dimension after the fact, not Sean.
> >
> > No I did not. Not only did I not, I actively pointed out that I did not.
> >
>
> Did not do what exactly?

Did not advocate verbal profession as a pre-condition for being a genuine Christian.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Now, my guess is that what they argued was instead that s) it is the
> > > > >> beliefs specified in the Creed that define membership in the Christian
> > > > >> community (rather than any other old belief, or a person's external
> > > > >> actions - sola fide and all that) and b) that since nobody knows better
> > > > >> what you believe than you, a person's verbal ascent to these creeds is
> > > > >> strong....
> > > > >
> > > > > Now Burk contradicts the spirit of what he just said----that no one in their right mind could advocate a verbal profession criteria to establish genuine status as a Christian. SHEESH! AGAIN, ANYONE can recite a creed: an actor or actress, or lawyer, or a child molester, or mass murderer, or even the town drunk.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, everyone "could" But normally people don't.
> > >
> > > How do you know? How do you know they are sincere AND correct?
> > >
> > > > That is we tend to
> > > > believe people unless we have reasons not to. The only reason I or
> > > > everyone else here has to believe you are a Christian are your words, in
> > > > particular your overlong signature. "Could" be that you are an atheist
> > > > and lying all the time - you sure are very efficient at making
> > > > Christians look stupid and immoral, and your knowledge of the Bible is
> > > > flaky at best (you seem to confuse it in parts with Plato's Timaeus -
> > > > but despite all this, for now I give you the benefit of the doubt and
> > > > accept you are a Christian, if one of a fringe belief. All just based on
> > > > your words.
> > >
> > > A rant thinly disguised as an argument. I need only remind that Burk is an Atheist, and I am a Bible-believing Protestant Christian.
> >
> > Not by your own definition you're not, since you are actively engaged in the sin of deceit.
> >
>
> If that were true Sean most certainly would not have asserted.

Asserted what? That you are not a Christian?

Seems to me you're putting forward contradictory determinants of Christianity. You say that you can know a Christian because they are opposed by atheists. But you also say that one cannot sin and be a Christian at the same time. Are you claiming that atheists never oppose someone who is sinning? That's the only way both of those things can be true at the same time.

> That means any person can be considered a Christian, anyone can jump through your hoop including persons that hate Christianity ---- that which the Bible calls "wolves in sheep's clothing." Since your criteria has no mechanism to determine the truth it is counterfeit.

Let's be clear: anyone could be considered BY OTHERS to be Christan, but the only people who are ACTUALLY Christian are those who believe in Christianity. Anyone could be considered BY OTHERS to be a believer in Santa Claus, but only the person themself can know for certain whether they are ACTUALLY a believer in Santa Claus. This is true of literally any question of belief... at least at this point. Maybe someday we'll have a fool-proof lie detector test.

I am sorry you are dissatisfied with the impossibility of making a certain determination from the outside, but that does nothing to impact the fact that it is absolutely true.

[Mark Isaak]

That has already been done, by myself and more effectively and at length
by others. Among other things, you deny Christianity what is arguably
its most important aspect, and certainly one without which it would not
have survived. You deny the possibility of even the most egregious
sinners to be Christians. Your words and your example show Christianity
to be, above all else, exclusionary.

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 10:05:05 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/23/17 7:08 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 8:15:03 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 11/20/17 12:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:20:03 PM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 11:15:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> >>>>
> >>>> NOPE! That is NOT what Sean has argued. Sean has argued that a Christian is any person who BELIEVES in the fundamental fact-claims of Christianity (which are pretty neatly laid out in the Apostles Creed).
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> WHOOSH!
> >>>
> >>> One must SAY they believe thus your criteria is verbal belief just like I said. There's no other way, by your criteria, to know who believes? except if they SAY they believe.
> >>>
> >>>> If you disagree with this assessment Ray, please tell me what you would have us label people who believe IN Christianity, but who fail to follow Christ the way you thing they should. (Hint: the answer is definitely not atheist, since atheists do NOT believe IN Christianity, by definition.)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I would label them as false claimants. Again, ANYONE can claim to be a Christian. Please tells us how you determine the claim to be true?
> >>>
> >>>> Sean has further argued that there is no absolute proof that can establish what is in another person's heart and mind.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Then you're ignorant of what the Bible says. Granted, only God knows the heart and mind, but the Scriptures provide a way to determine who is following the Christ of the Bible and who is not. And I absolutely guarantee that you will HATE these methods of determination.
> >>>
> >>> One method is approval by non-Christians or persecution by non-Christians. Christ said His true followers would be treated as He was treated. Makes sense because Christ affirmed that only two powers operate in the world: God's power, and Satan's power. Persecution, at the very least, means one is rejected by secular people. For example: I can't count how many times I've read in evolutionary literature that Ken Miller is a devout Catholic-Christian. The contextual sense is one of approval. Who approves of Miller's Christianity? These are Atheist authors like Jerry Coyne. IF Miller was a genuine Christian then Coyne would not approve of him. This particular test is one-hundred percent foolproof. Mind you, Coyne has specifically identified Miller as a devout Catholic-Christian. Coyne is not expressing approval of Miller apart from Miller's identity as a Catholic-Christian----that's why Coyne includes Miller's identity as a Catholic-Christian. Coyne is NOT approving of Catholic-Christianity, but Miller's Catholic-Christianity.
> >>>
> >>> When C.S. Lewis announced he had converted to Christianity he immediately suffered rejection by his university colleagues. They criticized him; thus they persecuted him. The same indicates that Lewis's conversion was genuine.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>> However, barring evidence to the contrary, there is no especial reason to DOUBT a person's self-report of their own beliefs.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Imagine that! No action or behavior contradicts Sean's verbal belief criteria. One can commit mass murder or be a serial rapist and in Sean's eyes as long as the rapist or murderer expresses verbal belief in Christ these persons were Christians when they murdered and raped.
> >>>
> >>> Obviously, Sean, an Atheist, is a deranged animal. He has SAVAGE hatred of Christianity, wishing to slander the main religion of America any way he can.
> >>
> >> And yet it is Ray, a so-called Christian, who shows Christianity to be
> >> more disreputable.
> >
> > If that were true Mark surely would have taken the time to clearly support his claim.
>
> That has already been done, by myself and more effectively and at length
> by others.

Like I just said, if that were true you would have surely supported and not asserted----again. The reason you assert and do not support is because you cannot refute anything that I have argued. Neither you nor any of your Atheist colleagues have been able to refute anything that I have said.

> Among other things, you deny Christianity what is arguably
> its most important aspect, and certainly one without which it would not
> have survived. You deny the possibility of even the most egregious
> sinners to be Christians. Your words and your example show Christianity
> to be, above all else, exclusionary.

Deliberate misrepresentation. Your kind does that because you don't want to admit that I have shown and proven that a mass murderer cannot be following Christ WHEN committing mass murder. Atheists like your self maintain that Hitler was a Christian. It serves the Atheist agenda that seeks to slander and undermine Christianity any way possible. This is why Atheists don't want Hitler excluded as a Christian. According to your thinking, a mass murderer cannot possibly be a liar as well, how convenient. Yet the Bible plainly says WHEN one is sinning one cannot be following Christ; rather, one is following Satan. That's been my argument which you have willfully evaded and distorted, all because you don't want to admit that a mass murderer was a liar as well----engaged in the warfare of propaganda. Let it be known that the Atheists believe Hitler because it serves their agenda to slander Christianity. In short: the same proclaims their savage hatred of Christianity. In reality the most imfamous mass murderer in modern times was an Atheist----that's why he murdered tens of millions persons without any conscience while portraying his crime against humanity as the work of a Christian and Christian nation.

Ray

[Rolf Aalberg]

"Ray Martinez" <r3p...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:df82b3bd-354b-4f40...@googlegroups.com...

> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in
> the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic.
> In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have
> argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the
> Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>

> In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE
> can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to
> grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is
> following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim
> about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support.
> But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from
> normal evidentiary standards.
>

> Ray
>

What is your evidence that you are following Christ?
That should be very easy for you to show?

Rolf

[Ray Martinez]

I've been waiting and waiting for one of my opponents to ask this question and it finally happened.

In the past I have asked the question, how does anyone know that evolutionary scientist Ken Miller is, in fact, a Christian? I'm using Miller as an example. One can substitute the name of any Christian Evolutionist including William Dembski or Ken Ham. All three persons accept the concept of evolution to exist in nature, and all three persons CLAIM to be Christians. In relevant literature authors contend each of these men are devout Christians. Assuming any given author does not know Ham, Dembski, or Miller personally, how was it determined that these men are devout Christians?

The only possible answer is by what each man says about them self, or by what others say about them. Again, assuming others do not know any of these men personally, how was it determined that each man a devout Christian? Again, the only possible answer is by what each man has said about them self.

How does anyone in Utah, Mexico or Egypt know that these men are Christians? Again, the only possible answer is by what each man says about them self, or by what others say about them. But I contend a way exists to determine the veracity of what each man says about them self.

The concept of evolution, as understood since Darwin, says older species give rise to newer species----that species originate species, not invisible Maker. Darwin argued this concept in the Origin. He specifically accounted for invisible Maker as not playing any role in the production of new species throughout the entire history of life on earth. Exactly why secular scholars agree unanimously that Darwin answered and refuted Paley's Watchmaker where species are compared to a watch, which is then inferred to have had a Maker.

One, therefore, cannot say that Christ approves of the concept of evolution neither can one say that Christ has led any person to accept the concept of evolution because the concept of evolution says the Father of Christ did not design or create any living thing, past or present.

I, on the other hand, accept Paley's Watchmaker. I see design in each species, which grants me the scientific basis to infer the work of an invisible Maker----the Father of Christ.

Conclusions: Because Miller, Dembski, and Ham accept the concept of evolution to exist in nature the same acts to contradict their claim of being devout followers of Christ. The concept of evolution was of course produced by the assumptions of Naturalism. One can be most certain that Christ does not approve of these assumptions and one can be most certain that Christ has not led any person to accept any claim made in service to the assumptions of Naturalism. The facts thus say: In the context of the Creation/Evolution debate, Ken Miller, William Dembski, and Ken Ham are NOT following Christ.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:

> > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> > > >
> > > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> > > >
> > > >Ray
> > >
> > >

> > > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
> >
> > Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.
>
> Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.
>

Sean's ignorance of basic Christian theology seen clearly. Yes all Christians are sinners and remain sinners until death. The preceding speaks of the inherited capacity to sin. Christians are dual-natured. Other places in the Bible establish that when a Christian sins or commits trespasses he or she is not following Christ, but Satan. The devil tempts us to sin. The same is well known and established Christian theology. Thus when we sin, whether for a moment or for years, we are not following Christ. The Bible clearly portrays the situation via the Apostle Peter. One moment he is following Christ, the next moment he is following Satan, then a moment later he is following Christ again. Sean deliberately ignores and/or misrepresents these detailed claims of fact because he wants Hitler and McVeigh to remain followers of Christ while actually committing mass murder. It serves the Atheist agenda to slander Christ which shows that the devil is alive and well doing his job.

> >
> > > I even accept for
> > > argument's sake that having an ax to grind is a sin. And as sins,
> > > they show that people who commit these sins are not following Christ.
> >
> > Yes, it's axiomatic.
>
> They may not be "following Christ" in that moment, but they may still be a followER of Christ, in the general sense. Besides which: being a Christian is a matter of BELIEF, not a matter of BEHAVIOR.
>

Not true. Behavior does matter. It matters if one sins. The New Testament spends a lot of time warning us not to abuse God's grace. If a person says in their heart that they can go ahead and sin, that God will forgive, then this particular attitude runs the risk of God declining to forgive. One cannot use grace as an occasion to sin. Read your Bible.

Ray

[jillery]

Of course, neither Evolution nor Design has anything whatsoever to do
with being Christian or following Christ or whatever euphemism you
currently use.

[Ray Martinez]

Comments say a Christian can indeed accept that which was produced by the epistemology of Naturalism (evolution) because Christ has no problem with a follower accepting an explanation of evidence that says His Father did not design or create any living thing throughout the entire history of life on earth.

Good example of the way Evolutionists "think."

Ray

[J.LyonLayden]

I've read a lot of ancient texts, but I do not remember the Torah, Old Testament or Vedas saying by what means life was created. What makes you think that molding a little clay figurine, putting a carrot in place of the nose, and sprinkling fairy dust on top is a better explanation for the process than evolution? or how do you think it was done? POOF and then species? Why is that a better process than Naturalism for your creation belief?

Just curious.

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 14:33:10 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

No it doesn't.

>Good example of the way Evolutionists "think."

No it isn't.

[Ray Martinez]

In the Bible created means by miracle or what is also known as an intervention. Perhaps you've heard of the creation concepts, special creation, separate creation, or independent creation? These speak of the exact same thing, a miracle intervention that causes something to exist.

>
> > What makes you think that molding a little clay figurine, putting a carrot in place of the nose, and sprinkling fairy dust on top is a better explanation for the process than evolution? or how do you think it was done? POOF and then species? Why is that a better process than Naturalism for your creation belief?
> >
> > Just curious.
>

Design, we see the concept in each species; therefore a scientific basis exists to infer the work of a Creator. The observed fact that species are designed immediately shuts down the possibility that species originated or evolved from an older or preexisting species. We contend that it's manifestly impossible for a unit of organized complexity (= species) to evolve by an unintelligent material process while retaining the ability to function. It's the exact explanation of species that cannot be true. But we do understand that secular or Atheist society has no choice, they must believe in the impossible----their conception of miracle, natural evolution.

Ray

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 17:34:33 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

According to Ray, the evidence for these evolutionists being
Christian is their say-so.

According to Ray, the evidence for him being Christian is his say-so.

Ray, go figure.

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:56:22 +0100, joecummin...@gmail.com
wrote:

Of course. According to Ray, his word is infallible because he's a
Christian. After all, Christian don't lie.

And the words of evolutionists are fallible because they are
evolutionists. After all, evolutionists aren't truthful.

It must be so easy to be like Ray, he doesn't have to think about his
answers.

[Ernest Major]

William Dembski and Ken Ham are creationists.

>
> According to Ray, the evidence for him being Christian is his say-so.

It's worse than that. According to Ray the evidence for him being
Christian is him holding a belief that is more Muslim than Christian,
and which is connected to Christ's teachings by the flimsiest of
strands. (If I recall correctly, some creationists make a leap of faith
that Jesus was a Biblical literalist on the grounds that he once
referred to Adam.)

Other Christians try to claim the credit for science on the disputable
grounds that natural law is a specifically Christian concept.

>
> Ray, go figure.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Joe Cummings
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

I stand corrected. Mioler, of course, referred to above, is a
Chrstian

>>
>> According to Ray, the evidence for him being Christian is his say-so.
>
>It's worse than that. According to Ray the evidence for him being
>Christian is him holding a belief that is more Muslim than Christian,
>and which is connected to Christ's teachings by the flimsiest of
>strands. (If I recall correctly, some creationists make a leap of faith
>that Jesus was a Biblical literalist on the grounds that he once
>referred to Adam.)
>
>Other Christians try to claim the credit for science on the disputable
>grounds that natural law is a specifically Christian concept.
>>
>> Ray, go figure.
>>
>> Have fun,
>>
>> Joe Cummings
>>

JC

[Ray Martinez]

Right above this message are three messages posted by three Evolutionists reacting to my argument that answers the question how anyone can know whether another person, whom they only know by reading what they write, is a Christian?

Note these facts: Each reaction message deliberately evades my determination criteria----acting like it doesn't exist. And each reaction message says exactly what I did not do----subjectively assert. Anyone can confirm by reading my determination criteria, which is short in length. It exists, it's in my argument, which is of course the reason-for-being of my argument!

Why would these three Evolutionists create replies that deliberately misrepresent what I said when anyone can easily fact-check and discover the truth?

The situation clearly proves that Evolutionists will lie brazenly to one's face----even when one can conduct a quick fact-check to confirm. The situation also proves that the reason these Evolutionists refused to address what I said and argued is because they cannot refute.

Lastly, one Evolutionist said William Dembski and Ken Ham were not Evolutionists, but Creationists. This assertion is false. Both men accept new species to appear by the standard Darwinian method, random mutation plus natural selection.

Ray

[J.LyonLayden]

No it doesn't. In video games, MOBs are generated by code. Someone made the code. Therefore, the mobs are created by design. The programmer intended for the mobs to be created by his program, and anticipated it when he set the game into motion.

I'm not saying that's what happened with the Universe, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to show you that your argument is meaningless and unnecessary.

By your same logic, you are saying that every individual had to be personally created by God, and that "birth" can't have ever occurred because it isn't by design but via a natural process

Evolution is no different than a son being born with a different hair color than his parents, or an extra finger, or a better immunity gene. Evolution is the same effect over a longer period of time.

Things change and adapt. They've been changing and adapting from a one-celled organism for a very long time. Whether or not someone initiated that process is still unknown. Whether our DNA has a preordained "code" is not yet known. Whether the "computer code" found recently at the quantum level is evidence of a Prime Mover or a virtual universe or something else remains to be seen.

>We contend that it's manifestly impossible for a unit of organized complexity >(= species) to evolve by an unintelligent material process while retaining the >ability to function. It's the exact explanation of species that cannot be true. >But we do understand that secular or Atheist society has no choice, they must >believe in the impossible----their conception of miracle, natural evolution.
>
> Ray

Why is this a miracle? Polar bears with flipper-like paws and lots of fat cells do better swimming in the ocean. Therefore, polar bears are developing cellulose insulation and elongated paws. What's so miraculous?

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:04 AM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
>
> In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
>
> Ray

Dictionaries - Easton's Bible Dictionary - Christian
Christian [N] [S]
the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were "brethren," "the faithful," "elect," "saints," "believers." But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name "Christian" came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament ( Acts 11:26 ; 26:28 ; 1 Peter 4:16 ).

These dictionary topics are from
M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition,
published by Thomas Nelson, 1897. Public Domain, copy freely.
[N] indicates this entry was also found in Nave's Topical Bible
[S] indicates this entry was also found in Smith's Bible Dictionary
Bibliography Information
Easton, Matthew George. "Entry for Christian". "Easton's Bible Dictionary". .

Dictionaries - Smith's Bible Dictionary - Christian
Christian. [N] [E]
The disciples, we are told, ( Acts 11:26 ) were first called Christians at Antioch on the Orontes, somewhere about A.D. 43. They were known to each other as, and were among themselves called, brethren, ( Acts 15:1 Acts 15:23 ; 1 Corinthians 7:12 ) disciples , ( Acts 9:26 ; 11:29 ) believers , ( Acts 5:14 ) saints , ( Romans 8:27 ; 15:25 ) The name "Christian," which, in the only other cases where it appears in the New Testament, ( Acts 26:28 ; 1 Peter 4:16 ) is used contemptuously, could not have been applied by the early disciples to themselves, but was imposed upon them by the Gentile world. There is no reason to suppose that the name "Christian" of itself was intended as a term of scurrility or abuse, though it would naturally be used with contempt.

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 07:25:39 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Right above this message are three messages posted by three Evolutionists reacting to my argument that answers the question how anyone can know whether another person, whom they only know by reading what they write, is a Christian?

Not everybody uses GG. Not everybody sorts by thread. Get a clue.

>Note these facts: Each reaction message deliberately evades my determination criteria----acting like it doesn't exist.

I suppose you're right, if you think evade means to respond to your
determination criteria. Otherwise, not so much.

>And each reaction message says exactly what I did not do----subjectively assert.

Once again, you would be right if you think "exactly what I did not
do" means exactly what you did do.

>Anyone can confirm by reading my determination criteria, which is short in length. It exists, it's in my argument, which is of course the reason-for-being of my argument!
>
>Why would these three Evolutionists create replies that deliberately misrepresent what I said when anyone can easily fact-check and discover the truth?

Since you asked, because they did not misrepresent what you said.

>The situation clearly proves that Evolutionists will lie brazenly to one's face----even when one can conduct a quick fact-check to confirm. The situation also proves that the reason these Evolutionists refused to address what I said and argued is because they cannot refute.
>
>Lastly, one Evolutionist said William Dembski and Ken Ham were not Evolutionists, but Creationists. This assertion is false. Both men accept new species to appear by the standard Darwinian method, random mutation plus natural selection.
>
>Ray

You have your own standards for qualifying Creationists and
Evolutionists, but Ken Ham is your philosophical doppleganger. Not
sure how you figure him as an Evolutionist.

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 07:25:39 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Right above this message are three messages posted by three Evolutionists reacting to my argument that answers the question how anyone can know whether another person, whom they only know by reading what they write, is a Christian?
>
>Note these facts: Each reaction message deliberately evades my determination criteria----acting like it doesn't exist. And each reaction message says exactly what I did not do----subjectively assert. Anyone can confirm by reading my determination criteria, which is short in length. It exists, it's in my argument, which is of course the reason-for-being of my argument!
>
>Why would these three Evolutionists create replies that deliberately misrepresent what I said when anyone can easily fact-check and discover the truth?

Here's what you wrote:
>>how was it determined that these men are devout Christians?

>The only possible answer is by what each man says about them self, or by what others say about them.

Of course, it's more than likely that you've decided to change your
mind since you wrote that.

>The situation clearly proves that Evolutionists will lie brazenly to one's face----even when one can conduct a quick fact-check to confirm. The situation also proves that the reason these Evolutionists refused to address what I said and argued is because they cannot refute.
>
>Lastly, one Evolutionist said William Dembski and Ken Ham were not Evolutionists, but Creationists. This assertion is false. Both men accept new species to appear by the standard Darwinian method, random mutation plus natural selection.
>
>Ray

Now where in this posting did you say anything about people being able
to judge whether you were a Christian?

Quite a few people follow your rantings here, and can see when you are
inconsistent or merely lying.

Remember, Rayit isn't what you think you've said that's important,
it's how it's perceived by the reader.


Have fun,

Joe Cummings ^

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 12:10:03 PM UTC-8, joecummin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 07:25:39 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Right above this message are three messages posted by three Evolutionists reacting to my argument that answers the question how anyone can know whether another person, whom they only know by reading what they write, is a Christian?
> >
> >Note these facts: Each reaction message deliberately evades my determination criteria----acting like it doesn't exist. And each reaction message says exactly what I did not do----subjectively assert. Anyone can confirm by reading my determination criteria, which is short in length. It exists, it's in my argument, which is of course the reason-for-being of my argument!
> >
> >Why would these three Evolutionists create replies that deliberately misrepresent what I said when anyone can easily fact-check and discover the truth?
>
> Here's what you wrote:
> >>how was it determined that these men are devout Christians?
>
> >The only possible answer is by what each man says about them self, or by what others say about them.
>

Anyone can scroll up and confirm the fact that Joe cut the meat of my argument out without indicating----again. We have clear proof that Evolutionists are brazen liars. Better yet here is the link, just click and see for oneself:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/gYD3gF2rRZA/IIyxXqejBgAJ

I was attacking the notion that self-identity, in and of itself, supports a claim of Christianity AND I provided a criteria by which one can verify whether a Christian self-identity claim is true, which Joe omitted a second time.

Is Joe incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest? I would say both are true in his case.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Yes it does----that's why Darwinian science denies and rejects design to exist in nature.

>
In video games, MOBs are generated by code. Someone made the code. Therefore, the mobs are created by design. The programmer intended for the mobs to be created by his program, and anticipated it when he set the game into motion.
>

Tell that to the Darwinists.

> I'm not saying that's what happened with the Universe, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to show you that your argument is meaningless and unnecessary.
>

How does your argument accomplish that----I don't understand?

> By your same logic, you are saying that every individual had to be personally created by God, and that "birth" can't have ever occurred because it isn't by design but via a natural process
>

But I did not say that. I said species were designed and created, not every individual. The birth process is of course designed.

> Evolution is no different than a son being born with a different hair color than his parents, or an extra finger, or a better immunity gene. Evolution is the same effect over a longer period of time.
>
> Things change and adapt. They've been changing and adapting from a one-celled organism for a very long time. Whether or not someone initiated that process is still unknown. Whether our DNA has a preordained "code" is not yet known. Whether the "computer code" found recently at the quantum level is evidence of a Prime Mover or a virtual universe or something else remains to be seen.
>

Not the point here. I answered your questions of what we claim and why we claim what we claim.

>
>
>
> >We contend that it's manifestly impossible for a unit of organized complexity >(= species) to evolve by an unintelligent material process while retaining the >ability to function. It's the exact explanation of species that cannot be true. >But we do understand that secular or Atheist society has no choice, they must >believe in the impossible----their conception of miracle, natural evolution.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Why is this a miracle? Polar bears with flipper-like paws and lots of fat cells do better swimming in the ocean. Therefore, polar bears are developing cellulose insulation and elongated paws. What's so miraculous?
>

I explained why: Again, BECAUSE it's manifestly impossible for units of organized complexity (= species) to give evolutionary rise to another unit of organized complexity (= new species) while retaining the ability to function via an unintelligent agent of causation----that's why. It appears that your mind can't even fathom the falsity of evolution. Yes, you're a brainwashed Atheist who must believe in the impossible: what I just described.

Let me help you digest what I just wrote. Capture the concept of organized complexity in your mind by simply envisioning the mechanism of an intricate pocket watch. Now try to envision a thing that has no mind or intelligence, something that is fully material producing said mechanism AND continually changing the configuration of said mechanism while retaining functionality. Simply impossible. It's takes human beings with engineering talents to accomplish the feat, yet evolutionary theory says a mindless process does the same!

Ray

[Burkhard]

Has been tried (many times) before with him, won't work. Most of the time Ray proclaims in response that there are no unguided and undirected processes at all, so happily bites the bullet that procreation, just like creation, is designed etc.

When people then point out that this leads to the collapse of his position into occasionalism at best, or some other form of evolutionist theism that makes the ToE just as true as classical mechanics or Newtonian particle physics, he derails this to an argument about the personal beliefs of Darwin and Newton respectively, and thus simply ignores the issue.

Sometimes he sort of agrees that birth happens naturally, but that that the birth process is designed (he's as unclear about how that looks practice as he is about the difference between designing a species and designing individuals) , and again ignores when people then point out that this gets you simply to deism, if followed through to its logical conclusion.

[J.LyonLayden]

That's ridiculous. Pocket watches don't reproduce. Animals reproduce just fine without an engineer. Offspring is not an exact replica of a parent. Speciation can occur when a population of animal is isolated and certain traits become ubiquitous in the population. I don't how somebody can say that's impossible.

You know dogs come from wolfs, right? You can see how a chihuahua looks totally different than a wolf, right? They also have different medical problems, different strengths and weaknesses...different traits. If we keep dogs away from wolves for the next 3 million years or so, chances are good the two sub-species won't be able to reproduce viable offspring anymore.

What's so impossible about that?

I'm not an atheist by the way. You can call me an evolutionist if you want. It's kind of like calling me a gravitationalist though, since my belief in gravity in no way defines my spiritual standing. I accept the theory of relativity too. Does that make me a relativist?

I am not sure you are a real Christian. Your interpretation of the Bible seems extremely one-sided and biased. I doubt you know ancient Hebrew to have read the pre-Roman versions of the texts you seem to have interpreted. Your interpretation seems very American and 18th century, with its insistence on a certain kind of creation over another.

Do you ever wonder if you are turning people away from religion with your rants on this forum? What does your scripture say about turning people away from God?

"Christian" is a term first coined by Romans. It was meant in a derogatory manner. You don't get to define it for everyone.

You don't get to explain to us how God made man from the Earth. That's all the text says, so stop trying to read things into it. Evolution is as good a process as any other. The Bible doesn't say Jehovah molded us with clay and dotted the eyes and drew the mouth and nose. It doesn't describe the actual process. It doesn't tell us how man was made from the Earth, just that it happened.

How it happened is not needed for enlightenment. That's why the original followers of Jehovah didn't spend as much time talking about it in the Bible as you do in one day here on this forum. In the time of Abraham, there would have been no way to explain evolution any better to a caveman than what you find in Genesis. We had no concept of the word "evolution" then, or even orders for animals. Few if any could conceptualize a million years back then. The word "Pre-Cambrian" had not been invented yet.

I don't see where you've gotten the notion that you are an expert on ancient Hebrew or an expert on the mind of God.

[Ray Martinez]

You've never explained how that occurs? If you choose to take the time to explain then remember our context, that's all I ask.

> or some other form of evolutionist theism that makes the ToE just as true as classical mechanics or Newtonian particle physics, he derails this to an argument about the personal beliefs of Darwin and Newton respectively, and thus simply ignores the issue.
>

Burk treats the respective views of both Darwin and Newton as their personal views, meaning not the accepted scientific views of the time when each man lived. When Newton and Darwin lived their personal views were the views of mainstream science, the only caveat: Darwin's personal view concerning species did not become the view of science until after the watershed date of 1872.

When Burk makes these divisions he, at the same time, alludes and/or implies that the consensus view happened to be the view of science today! Shows how far Atheists will go to attempt to erase the fact that science, up until the rise of Darwinism, accepted Supernaturalism epistemology known generically as Theism.

> Sometimes he sort of agrees that birth happens naturally, but that that the birth process is designed (he's as unclear about how that looks practice as he is about the difference between designing a species and designing individuals) , and again ignores when people then point out that this gets you simply to deism, if followed through to its logical conclusion.
>

One can be sure that Burk has not conveyed my view accurately, not even close. The Creation v. Evolution debate is mutually exclusive. Since 1872, science has accepted natural or material causation exclusively. Prior to 1859 science accepted supernatural or immaterial causation exclusively. At no time prior to 1859 did science accept natural causation. And at no time after 1872 has science accepted supernatural causation.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

> Sometimes he sort of agrees that birth happens naturally, but [....] that the birth process is designed
>

Let's ignore the bad writing. Next: Burk's thought cannot be truly understood because one cannot be sure which definitional sense he is using when he writes the word "natural." Said word has several valid meanings in these context. I've plainly said that the process and mechanism of human birth was designed, which is standard Creationism. This means Eve's body was designed and created, which means every human being since was designed as well. Note the fact that I left out created.
Yet one can examine any individual offspring of Eve and conclude created based on design. When design is present one can rightly infer the work of a Creator even though we know that only the original progenitor was actually the only individual, not counting Adam, who was created.

Ray

[Ernest Major]

I won't ignore your bad writing. What you write implies that all
organisms are descended from Adam and Eve. I presume that you don't
actually believe that, and that you instead believe that individuals are
descended from the original progenitors of their species.

However you haven't presented the epistemological principle that allow
you to conclude that reproduction as a natural process that commenced
with the creation of the original progenitors is compatible with
Raytheism, but (micro)evolution as a natural process that commenced with
the creation of the original progenitors is not. In your mind, why can
the "birth process" (should that be organismal development?) be
designed, but the process of evolution can't be?

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

Did it several times, last time here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/K7i-NltkDI8/GTSKHOK5BgAJ

>
>> or some other form of evolutionist theism that makes the ToE just as true as classical mechanics or Newtonian particle physics, he derails this to an argument about the personal beliefs of Darwin and Newton respectively, and thus simply ignores the issue.
>>
>
> Burk treats the respective views of both Darwin and Newton as their personal views, meaning not the accepted scientific views of the time when each man lived.

Nope. I treat their personal views and their personal views, and their
scientific, published views as their public, scientific view. To
determine what their theories objectively say, you only have to read the
theories, what went on in their minds, their hopes, aspirations, and
even philosophical interpretations of their own theories are a
irrelevant for this.

You claim to be an objectivist (as unconvincingly as your claim to be a
Christian), yet you persistently argue for the most radical form of
non-realism, historicism and psychologism, when you think it suits you.

>
>When Newton and Darwin lived their personal views were the views of mainstream science, the only caveat: Darwin's personal view concerning species did not become the view of science until after the watershed date of 1872.

Doesn't matter diddle. only what they chose to conlude in their
theories, as published, does.

>
> When Burk makes these divisions he, at the same time, alludes and/or implies that the consensus view happened to be the view of science today! Shows how far Atheists will go to attempt to erase the fact that science, up until the rise of Darwinism, accepted Supernaturalism epistemology known generically as Theism.

And if you can show how a theistic interpretation of Newton's theory, as
formulated, gives you different predictions about say the flight pass of
a canon ball from one that does not accept supernaturalism, you'll have
a point.

Unless you can do this, you huff, and puff, but produce just hot air.

>
>> Sometimes he sort of agrees that birth happens naturally, but that that the birth process is designed (he's as unclear about how that looks practice as he is about the difference between designing a species and designing individuals) , and again ignores when people then point out that this gets you simply to deism, if followed through to its logical conclusion.
>>
>
> One can be sure that Burk has not conveyed my view accurately, not even close.

quite possibly. It is difficult to convey a view accurately that is so
much mired in self-contradictions, idiosyncratic word usage and
generally odd formulations I do my best, if it's not what you mean,
blame the sender.

>The Creation v. Evolution debate is mutually exclusive. Since 1872, science has accepted natural or material causation exclusively. Prior to 1859 science accepted supernatural or immaterial causation exclusively. At no time prior to 1859 did science accept natural causation. And at no time after 1872 has science accepted supernatural causation.

And neither matters for what the objective content of the theories under
consideration say.

[Sean Dillon]

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:00:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> > > > >
> > > > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> > > > >
> > > > >Ray
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
> > >
> > > Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.
> >
> > Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.
> >
>
> Sean's ignorance of basic Christian theology seen clearly. Yes all Christians are sinners and remain sinners until death. The preceding speaks of the inherited capacity to sin. Christians are dual-natured. Other places in the Bible establish that when a Christian sins or commits trespasses he or she is not following Christ, but Satan. The devil tempts us to sin. The same is well known and established Christian theology. Thus when we sin, whether for a moment or for years, we are not following Christ. The Bible clearly portrays the situation via the Apostle Peter. One moment he is following Christ, the next moment he is following Satan, then a moment later he is following Christ again. Sean deliberately ignores and/or misrepresents these detailed claims of fact because he wants Hitler and McVeigh to remain followers of Christ while actually committing mass murder. It serves the Atheist agenda to slander Christ which shows that the devil is alive and well doing his job.

Ray: I'm not even going to bother arguing with your misinterpretation of the "Peter incident," because it is irrelevant to the point at hand. You are self-servingly mis-defining "Christian." A Christian is a person who BELIEVES in Christianity. That's what the word "Christian" denotes. Whether or not a person is "following" Christ at any given time simply isn't germane to whether one meets the definition of "Christian". This renders the rest of your argument meaningless drivel.

I'm going to tell you for the 18th time that I DO NOT argue that Hitler was a Christian, because of the substantial circumstantial evidence against that possibility. Stop lying about my position. That's a sin, Ray. And you can't plead ignorance. You are being a bad Christian right now, Ray, because you are in the midst of a sin. But you ARE still a Christian.

I do not care to "slander Christ," nor even to denigrate Christianity. If someone wants to believe in Christianity, that's their business. I have a lot of friends and family who are Christians, and I don't love them any less for it. I am simply saying -- have consistently BEEN saying -- that Christians are no more no less capable of doing terrible things than anyone else. It isn't slander to say that Christians are just like the rest of it.

>
> > >
> > > > I even accept for
> > > > argument's sake that having an ax to grind is a sin. And as sins,
> > > > they show that people who commit these sins are not following Christ.
> > >
> > > Yes, it's axiomatic.
> >
> > They may not be "following Christ" in that moment, but they may still be a followER of Christ, in the general sense. Besides which: being a Christian is a matter of BELIEF, not a matter of BEHAVIOR.
> >
>
> Not true. Behavior does matter. It matters if one sins. The New Testament spends a lot of time warning us not to abuse God's grace. If a person says in their heart that they can go ahead and sin, that God will forgive, then this particular attitude runs the risk of God declining to forgive. One cannot use grace as an occasion to sin. Read your Bible.

I didn't say that behavior doesn't matter. I said that behavior is not what makes someone a Christian. BELIEF is what makes someone a Christian. BEHAVIOR simply makes them a good or bad Christian.

[earle.jones talk.origins]

[...clipabunch...]

*
Joe: Haven't you heard? Ray is God's official interpreter here on earth.

earle
*

[Ray Martinez]

Since I singled out and spoke only of human beings----not true; no such implication exists.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Not much content in that link, which indicates to me that you don't want to press the issue.

>
>
> >
> >> or some other form of evolutionist theism that makes the ToE just as true as classical mechanics or Newtonian particle physics, he derails this to an argument about the personal beliefs of Darwin and Newton respectively, and thus simply ignores the issue.
> >>
> >
> > Burk treats the respective views of both Darwin and Newton as their personal views, meaning not the accepted scientific views of the time when each man lived.
>
> Nope. I treat their personal views and their personal views, and their
> scientific, published views as their public, scientific view. To
> determine what their theories objectively say, you only have to read the
> theories, what went on in their minds, their hopes, aspirations, and
> even philosophical interpretations of their own theories are a
> irrelevant for this.

Pointless comments lacking an issue.

>
> You claim to be an objectivist (as unconvincingly as your claim to be a
> Christian), yet you persistently argue for the most radical form of
> non-realism, historicism and psychologism, when you think it suits you.

Utterly ridiculous!

>
> >
> >When Newton and Darwin lived their personal views were the views of mainstream science, the only caveat: Darwin's personal view concerning species did not become the view of science until after the watershed date of 1872.
> >

> Doesn't matter diddle. only what they chose to conclude in their
> theories, as published, does.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

>
> >
> > When Burk makes these divisions he, at the same time, alludes and/or implies that the consensus view happened to be the view of science today! Shows how far Atheists will go to attempt to erase the fact that science, up until the rise of Darwinism, accepted Supernaturalism epistemology known generically as Theism.
>
> And if you can show how a theistic interpretation of Newton's theory, as
> formulated, gives you different predictions about say the flight pass of
> a canon ball from one that does not accept supernaturalism, you'll have
> a point.

Whatever law you're alluding to was held designed and created when Newton lived. Today whatever law you're alluding to is held to be the exact opposite (which literally makes no sense whatsoever).

>
> Unless you can do this, you huff, and puff, but produce just hot air.
>
> >
> >> Sometimes he sort of agrees that birth happens naturally, but that that the birth process is designed (he's as unclear about how that looks practice as he is about the difference between designing a species and designing individuals) , and again ignores when people then point out that this gets you simply to deism, if followed through to its logical conclusion.
> >>
> >
> > One can be sure that Burk has not conveyed my view accurately, not even close.
>
> quite possibly. It is difficult to convey a view accurately that is so
> much mired in self-contradictions

Ridiculous! All that means is that you don't understand because your mind has been severely damaged and poisoned by Naturalism and uncertainty.

> idiosyncratic word usage

That's been the essence of my criticism concerning your thought and arguments as well. Language in the West presupposes the truth of Realism.

> and generally odd formulations I do my best, if it's not what you mean,
> blame the sender.

These are odd in your thinking because you're thinking has not been shaped by the mainstream players in whatever subject we are discussing or attempting to discuss. I only speak on subjects that I have studied extensively. I only speak on subjects where I know I am correct and absolutely certain. The philosophy of Realism presupposes absolute certainty. Evolutionary theory lays claim to Realism, but in order to pacify the philosophers evolutionary theorists give lip service to uncertainty, which is contradictory, cowardly, and disingenuous. But the lip service content exists as throwaway content. You don't understand that. One cannot advocate Realism and remain uncertain. You've lost track of the lies that evolutionary scholars have felt compelled to tell. All you have to do is remember that uncertainty should not be taken literally. This brings me to the very FIRST premise of Randian Objectivism: existence exists, one can be absolutely certain. Precisely why we don't step in front of moving buses and trains. Because your mind has been poisoned by uncertainty, which evolutionary scientists do not take seriously, but only give lip service, the same explains WHY you don't understand what I write. Words are identifiers; they are the ambassadors of reality. In your thinking language exists separated from reality.

>
> >The Creation v. Evolution debate is mutually exclusive. Since 1872, science has accepted natural or material causation exclusively. Prior to 1859 science accepted supernatural or immaterial causation exclusively. At no time prior to 1859 did science accept natural causation. And at no time after 1872 has science accepted supernatural causation.
>
> And neither matters for what the objective content of the theories under
> consideration say.
>

Said content exists in service to one of the two epistemes seen in my comments.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:00:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > > > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Ray
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
> > > >
> > > > Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.
> > >
> > > Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.
> > >
> >
> > Sean's ignorance of basic Christian theology seen clearly. Yes all Christians are sinners and remain sinners until death. The preceding speaks of the inherited capacity to sin. Christians are dual-natured. Other places in the Bible establish that when a Christian sins or commits trespasses he or she is not following Christ, but Satan. The devil tempts us to sin. The same is well known and established Christian theology. Thus when we sin, whether for a moment or for years, we are not following Christ. The Bible clearly portrays the situation via the Apostle Peter. One moment he is following Christ, the next moment he is following Satan, then a moment later he is following Christ again. Sean deliberately ignores and/or misrepresents these detailed claims of fact because he wants Hitler and McVeigh to remain followers of Christ while actually committing mass murder. It serves the Atheist agenda to slander Christ which shows that the devil is alive and well doing his job.
> >
> Ray: I'm not even going to bother arguing with your misinterpretation of the "Peter incident," because it is irrelevant to the point at hand.
>

It falsifies everything you're saying----that's why when you have addressed in the past you've dismissed these verses summarily. I accept what these verses say because the whole Bible plainly says the same. That's the first rule of biblical interpretation: one must be able to show the same truth existing elsewhere in the Scriptures. The whole Bible says mankind born under the rule of Satan. Christianity is a Divine rescue project. When a person begins escaping the clutches of Satan a warfare begins. That warfare is clearly seen in the verses where the Apostle Peter lets the Devil get a swipe at Jesus.

>
You are self-servingly mis-defining "Christian." A Christian is a person who BELIEVES in Christianity. That's what the word "Christian" denotes. Whether or not a person is "following" Christ at any given time simply isn't germane to whether one meets the definition of "Christian". This renders the rest of your argument meaningless drivel.
>

I've already pasted verses that say and show a Christian to be a follower of Christ. You have ignored and/or dismissed. Instead you maintain that a Christian is any person who makes a verbal profession in the Divinity and teachings of Christ. Then you ignore the fact that ALL of the same equates to a claim of following Christ. If not then what's the point? You also conspicuously ignore other criticism of your view that says ANYONE can profess to believe in Christ.

Ray

[snip....will finish replying to the remainder of Sean's arguments ASAP....]

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:00:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > > > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Ray
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
> > > >
> > > > Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.
> > >
> > > Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.
> > >
> >
> > Sean's ignorance of basic Christian theology seen clearly. Yes all Christians are sinners and remain sinners until death. The preceding speaks of the inherited capacity to sin. Christians are dual-natured. Other places in the Bible establish that when a Christian sins or commits trespasses he or she is not following Christ, but Satan. The devil tempts us to sin. The same is well known and established Christian theology. Thus when we sin, whether for a moment or for years, we are not following Christ. The Bible clearly portrays the situation via the Apostle Peter. One moment he is following Christ, the next moment he is following Satan, then a moment later he is following Christ again. Sean deliberately ignores and/or misrepresents these detailed claims of fact because he wants Hitler and McVeigh to remain followers of Christ while actually committing mass murder. It serves the Atheist agenda to slander Christ which shows that the devil is alive and well doing his job.
>
> Ray: I'm not even going to bother arguing with your misinterpretation of the "Peter incident," because it is irrelevant to the point at hand. You are self-servingly mis-defining "Christian." A Christian is a person who BELIEVES in Christianity. That's what the word "Christian" denotes. Whether or not a person is "following" Christ at any given time simply isn't germane to whether one meets the definition of "Christian". This renders the rest of your argument meaningless drivel.
>
> I'm going to tell you for the 18th time that I DO NOT argue that Hitler was a Christian, because of the substantial circumstantial evidence against that possibility. Stop lying about my position. That's a sin, Ray. And you can't plead ignorance. You are being a bad Christian right now, Ray, because you are in the midst of a sin. But you ARE still a Christian.
>

Your criteria for establishing Christianity, expressing belief in the Divinity of Christ, renders Hitler a Christian.

> I do not care to "slander Christ," nor even to denigrate Christianity. If someone wants to believe in Christianity, that's their business. I have a lot of friends and family who are Christians, and I don't love them any less for it. I am simply saying -- have consistently BEEN saying -- that Christians are no more no less capable of doing terrible things than anyone else. It isn't slander to say that Christians are just like the rest of it.
>

Christians are known for building schools and hospitals, feeding poor people, and getting killed by nonbelievers for proclaiming Christ. Christians remain sinners while being killed for proclaiming Christ, feeding poor people, and building schools and hospitals. But Christians are not sinning when they are building schools and hospitals, feeding poor people, and getting killed for proclaiming Christ. It thus follows that when Christians are sinning they are not following Christ or believing in Christ, but denying Christ. You can't have it both ways at the same time. Your theology fails to differentiate in any meaningful way between the state of sin or the capability, and the action of sinning or committing trespasses. After all it's the commission of trespasses that takes one to hell; therefore one cannot be saved WHILE one is committing trespasses, doing terrible things. Negative ramifications are not accounted for in your theology. As long as one "believes in Christ" the same equates to blanket salvation. That is not what the Bible teaches.

Ray

[kit...@netzero.com]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:00:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > > > > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Ray
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sean's ignorance of basic Christian theology seen clearly. Yes all Christians are sinners and remain sinners until death. The preceding speaks of the inherited capacity to sin. Christians are dual-natured. Other places in the Bible establish that when a Christian sins or commits trespasses he or she is not following Christ, but Satan. The devil tempts us to sin. The same is well known and established Christian theology. Thus when we sin, whether for a moment or for years, we are not following Christ. The Bible clearly portrays the situation via the Apostle Peter. One moment he is following Christ, the next moment he is following Satan, then a moment later he is following Christ again. Sean deliberately ignores and/or misrepresents these detailed claims of fact because he wants Hitler and McVeigh to remain followers of Christ while actually committing mass murder. It serves the Atheist agenda to slander Christ which shows that the devil is alive and well doing his job.
> >
> > Ray: I'm not even going to bother arguing with your misinterpretation of the "Peter incident," because it is irrelevant to the point at hand. You are self-servingly mis-defining "Christian." A Christian is a person who BELIEVES in Christianity. That's what the word "Christian" denotes. Whether or not a person is "following" Christ at any given time simply isn't germane to whether one meets the definition of "Christian". This renders the rest of your argument meaningless drivel.
> >
> > I'm going to tell you for the 18th time that I DO NOT argue that Hitler was a Christian, because of the substantial circumstantial evidence against that possibility. Stop lying about my position. That's a sin, Ray. And you can't plead ignorance. You are being a bad Christian right now, Ray, because you are in the midst of a sin. But you ARE still a Christian.
> >
> Your criteria for establishing Christianity, expressing belief in the Divinity of Christ, renders Hitler a Christian.

What is so objectionable about "rendering Hitler a Christian"? There nothing special about Christianity that prevents its members from being evil people. After all, Judas was an apostle until the moment he died.

-- Kit

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 8:35:04 PM UTC-8, kit...@netzero.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:00:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > > > > > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Ray
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sean's ignorance of basic Christian theology seen clearly. Yes all Christians are sinners and remain sinners until death. The preceding speaks of the inherited capacity to sin. Christians are dual-natured. Other places in the Bible establish that when a Christian sins or commits trespasses he or she is not following Christ, but Satan. The devil tempts us to sin. The same is well known and established Christian theology. Thus when we sin, whether for a moment or for years, we are not following Christ. The Bible clearly portrays the situation via the Apostle Peter. One moment he is following Christ, the next moment he is following Satan, then a moment later he is following Christ again. Sean deliberately ignores and/or misrepresents these detailed claims of fact because he wants Hitler and McVeigh to remain followers of Christ while actually committing mass murder. It serves the Atheist agenda to slander Christ which shows that the devil is alive and well doing his job.
> > >
> > > Ray: I'm not even going to bother arguing with your misinterpretation of the "Peter incident," because it is irrelevant to the point at hand. You are self-servingly mis-defining "Christian." A Christian is a person who BELIEVES in Christianity. That's what the word "Christian" denotes. Whether or not a person is "following" Christ at any given time simply isn't germane to whether one meets the definition of "Christian". This renders the rest of your argument meaningless drivel.
> > >
> > > I'm going to tell you for the 18th time that I DO NOT argue that Hitler was a Christian, because of the substantial circumstantial evidence against that possibility. Stop lying about my position. That's a sin, Ray. And you can't plead ignorance. You are being a bad Christian right now, Ray, because you are in the midst of a sin. But you ARE still a Christian.
> > >
> > Your criteria for establishing Christianity, expressing belief in the Divinity of Christ, renders Hitler a Christian.
>
> What is so objectionable about "rendering Hitler a Christian"? There nothing special about Christianity that prevents its members from being evil people. After all, Judas was an apostle until the moment he died.
>
> -- Kit

Judas was not an apostle of Christ when he was betraying Christ.

Ray

[kit...@netzero.com]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 11:55:03 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 8:35:04 PM UTC-8, kit...@netzero.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:00:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > > > > > > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Ray
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sean's ignorance of basic Christian theology seen clearly. Yes all Christians are sinners and remain sinners until death. The preceding speaks of the inherited capacity to sin. Christians are dual-natured. Other places in the Bible establish that when a Christian sins or commits trespasses he or she is not following Christ, but Satan. The devil tempts us to sin. The same is well known and established Christian theology. Thus when we sin, whether for a moment or for years, we are not following Christ. The Bible clearly portrays the situation via the Apostle Peter. One moment he is following Christ, the next moment he is following Satan, then a moment later he is following Christ again. Sean deliberately ignores and/or misrepresents these detailed claims of fact because he wants Hitler and McVeigh to remain followers of Christ while actually committing mass murder. It serves the Atheist agenda to slander Christ which shows that the devil is alive and well doing his job.
> > > >
> > > > Ray: I'm not even going to bother arguing with your misinterpretation of the "Peter incident," because it is irrelevant to the point at hand. You are self-servingly mis-defining "Christian." A Christian is a person who BELIEVES in Christianity. That's what the word "Christian" denotes. Whether or not a person is "following" Christ at any given time simply isn't germane to whether one meets the definition of "Christian". This renders the rest of your argument meaningless drivel.
> > > >
> > > > I'm going to tell you for the 18th time that I DO NOT argue that Hitler was a Christian, because of the substantial circumstantial evidence against that possibility. Stop lying about my position. That's a sin, Ray. And you can't plead ignorance. You are being a bad Christian right now, Ray, because you are in the midst of a sin. But you ARE still a Christian.
> > > >
> > > Your criteria for establishing Christianity, expressing belief in the Divinity of Christ, renders Hitler a Christian.
> >
> > What is so objectionable about "rendering Hitler a Christian"? There nothing special about Christianity that prevents its members from being evil people. After all, Judas was an apostle until the moment he died.
> >
> > -- Kit
>
> Judas was not an apostle of Christ when he was betraying Christ.
>

Present some objective evidence that Judas was not an apostle of Christ when he betrayed Christ. Was Peter an apostle when he denied knowing Christ three times on the night before Christ was crucified?

-- Kit

[Ray Martinez]

The Bible says Judas became possessed by Satan during the Last Supper. The title of "apostle of Christ" and the "action of betrayal of Christ" contradict; whereas the action of betrayal follows from the evil possession event.

When Peter denied Christ he was serving Satan. But when confronted with his sin, by Christ, the Bible says he left the location of denial and wept bitterly, which indicates repentance.

Ray

[Sean Dillon]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 7:20:02 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:00:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > > > > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Ray
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sean's ignorance of basic Christian theology seen clearly. Yes all Christians are sinners and remain sinners until death. The preceding speaks of the inherited capacity to sin. Christians are dual-natured. Other places in the Bible establish that when a Christian sins or commits trespasses he or she is not following Christ, but Satan. The devil tempts us to sin. The same is well known and established Christian theology. Thus when we sin, whether for a moment or for years, we are not following Christ. The Bible clearly portrays the situation via the Apostle Peter. One moment he is following Christ, the next moment he is following Satan, then a moment later he is following Christ again. Sean deliberately ignores and/or misrepresents these detailed claims of fact because he wants Hitler and McVeigh to remain followers of Christ while actually committing mass murder. It serves the Atheist agenda to slander Christ which shows that the devil is alive and well doing his job.
> > >
> > Ray: I'm not even going to bother arguing with your misinterpretation of the "Peter incident," because it is irrelevant to the point at hand.
> >
>
> It falsifies everything you're saying----that's why when you have addressed in the past you've dismissed these verses summarily. I accept what these verses say because the whole Bible plainly says the same. That's the first rule of biblical interpretation: one must be able to show the same truth existing elsewhere in the Scriptures. The whole Bible says mankind born under the rule of Satan. Christianity is a Divine rescue project. When a person begins escaping the clutches of Satan a warfare begins. That warfare is clearly seen in the verses where the Apostle Peter lets the Devil get a swipe at Jesus.
>

No, it doesn't falsify anything I'm saying at all. That verse does not -- nor does any other verse in the Bible -- define a Christian as a "follower" of Christ rather than a believer IN CHRISTIANITY. Whether this verse is about the "spiritual warfare" between Jesus and Satan is entirely beside the point at hand.

> >
> You are self-servingly mis-defining "Christian." A Christian is a person who BELIEVES in Christianity. That's what the word "Christian" denotes. Whether or not a person is "following" Christ at any given time simply isn't germane to whether one meets the definition of "Christian". This renders the rest of your argument meaningless drivel.
> >
>
> I've already pasted verses that say and show a Christian to be a follower of Christ. You have ignored and/or dismissed.

I dismissed them because they aren't definitions of what a "Christian" is. The word Christian (naturally) isn't even a part of either passage.

> Instead you maintain that a Christian is any person who makes a verbal profession in the Divinity and teachings of Christ.

NOPE! A Christian, as I have said SO MANY TIMES NOW, is any person who BELIEVES in the tenets of Christianity, regardless of whether they verbalize it or not. You have the most tremendous mental block about this.

> Then you ignore the fact that ALL of the same equates to a claim of following Christ. If not then what's the point? You also conspicuously ignore other criticism of your view that says ANYONE can profess to believe in Christ.

Ray, I can't make this any clearer: It isn't about the PROFESSION, it is about the BELIEF. A Christian is a person who BELIEVES the tenets of Christianity. Period. It doesn't matter if they verbalize or profess those beliefs, it doesn't matter whether you, Ray, are able to know that they hold those beliefs. The beliefs are THE only thing that makes a person a Christian.

Can YOU, from the OUTSIDE, know for certain whether someone truly believes, or is just professing? No. No you can't. That's the thing about beliefs. The only person who TRULY knows what a person believes is the person themself. Can we look at circumstantial evidence one way or another? Of course we can, but ultimately, it is just a best guess.

But of course you don't want a good-faith best guess... you just want to be able to call anyone who is doing anything wicked a non-Christian. But of course that's heterodox to Christian teaching, which says that all people ARE in bondage to sin and CANNOT free themselves. Not POTENTIAL sin, Ray, but ACTUAL SIN. Stop trying to legalistically wriggle out from under that one. And if a person cannot be a Christian while sinning, then by the definitions of Christianity itself, literally no person can be a Christian, ever, because every single person IS in bondage to sin AT ALL TIMES.

Christians ARE sinners. Sin is NOT a disqualifier of a person's Christianity. This isn't complicated. You're tying Christianity into a pretzel to keep its hands clean, but clean hands was NEVER what Christianity was about.

[Sean Dillon]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:55:02 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:00:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > > > > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Ray
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sean's ignorance of basic Christian theology seen clearly. Yes all Christians are sinners and remain sinners until death. The preceding speaks of the inherited capacity to sin. Christians are dual-natured. Other places in the Bible establish that when a Christian sins or commits trespasses he or she is not following Christ, but Satan. The devil tempts us to sin. The same is well known and established Christian theology. Thus when we sin, whether for a moment or for years, we are not following Christ. The Bible clearly portrays the situation via the Apostle Peter. One moment he is following Christ, the next moment he is following Satan, then a moment later he is following Christ again. Sean deliberately ignores and/or misrepresents these detailed claims of fact because he wants Hitler and McVeigh to remain followers of Christ while actually committing mass murder. It serves the Atheist agenda to slander Christ which shows that the devil is alive and well doing his job.
> >
> > Ray: I'm not even going to bother arguing with your misinterpretation of the "Peter incident," because it is irrelevant to the point at hand. You are self-servingly mis-defining "Christian." A Christian is a person who BELIEVES in Christianity. That's what the word "Christian" denotes. Whether or not a person is "following" Christ at any given time simply isn't germane to whether one meets the definition of "Christian". This renders the rest of your argument meaningless drivel.
> >
> > I'm going to tell you for the 18th time that I DO NOT argue that Hitler was a Christian, because of the substantial circumstantial evidence against that possibility. Stop lying about my position. That's a sin, Ray. And you can't plead ignorance. You are being a bad Christian right now, Ray, because you are in the midst of a sin. But you ARE still a Christian.
> >
> Your criteria for establishing Christianity, expressing belief in the Divinity of Christ, renders Hitler a Christian.
>
> > I do not care to "slander Christ," nor even to denigrate Christianity. If someone wants to believe in Christianity, that's their business. I have a lot of friends and family who are Christians, and I don't love them any less for it. I am simply saying -- have consistently BEEN saying -- that Christians are no more no less capable of doing terrible things than anyone else. It isn't slander to say that Christians are just like the rest of it.
> >
> Christians are known for building schools and hospitals, feeding poor people, and getting killed by nonbelievers for proclaiming Christ.

Christians are also known for shooting up women's health clinics, burning "witches," the Crusades, and the Inquisition. Christians, like anyone else, are capable of both wonderful and horrible acts.

> Christians remain sinners while being killed for proclaiming Christ, feeding poor people, and building schools and hospitals. But Christians are not sinning when they are building schools and hospitals, feeding poor people, and getting killed for proclaiming Christ.

Yes they are. Christians are in bondage to sin AT ALL TIMES. Sin is essential to the very NATURE of humanity, according to Christianity.

>It thus follows that when Christians are sinning they are not following Christ or believing in Christ, but denying Christ.

It DOES NOT follow that people who are sinning do not believe in Christ. That's ridiculous. People's beliefs don't suddenly change while they sin. Therefore, neither does their religion. They remain Christian... they're just a BAD Christian.

> You can't have it both ways at the same time. Your theology fails to differentiate in any meaningful way between the state of sin or the capability, and the action of sinning or committing trespasses.

The latter is a reflection of the former. Christianity says that sin is a part of your very nature. You sin by your mere existence. You fall short of following Christ by your very existence. You can TRY to follow Christ, but you will fail innately. If only "followers of Christ" are Christian, then there can be no such thing as a Christian. Only by the Grace of God may you be saved. The difference between you and a mass murderer is only degree, when it comes to sin.

All this, according to Christianity, of course.

> After all it's the commission of trespasses that takes one to hell; therefore one cannot be saved WHILE one is committing trespasses, doing terrible things. Negative ramifications are not accounted for in your theology. As long as one "believes in Christ" the same equates to blanket salvation. That is not what the Bible teaches.

And that's not what I said. I never said believing in Christ guarantees a trip to Heaven. "Being a Christian" and "Being Heavenbound" are not the same thing. If Hell exists, I'm sure there are plenty of bad Christians there.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 7:55:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:55:02 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:00:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > > > > > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Ray
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sean's ignorance of basic Christian theology seen clearly. Yes all Christians are sinners and remain sinners until death. The preceding speaks of the inherited capacity to sin. Christians are dual-natured. Other places in the Bible establish that when a Christian sins or commits trespasses he or she is not following Christ, but Satan. The devil tempts us to sin. The same is well known and established Christian theology. Thus when we sin, whether for a moment or for years, we are not following Christ. The Bible clearly portrays the situation via the Apostle Peter. One moment he is following Christ, the next moment he is following Satan, then a moment later he is following Christ again. Sean deliberately ignores and/or misrepresents these detailed claims of fact because he wants Hitler and McVeigh to remain followers of Christ while actually committing mass murder. It serves the Atheist agenda to slander Christ which shows that the devil is alive and well doing his job.
> > >
> > > Ray: I'm not even going to bother arguing with your misinterpretation of the "Peter incident," because it is irrelevant to the point at hand. You are self-servingly mis-defining "Christian." A Christian is a person who BELIEVES in Christianity. That's what the word "Christian" denotes. Whether or not a person is "following" Christ at any given time simply isn't germane to whether one meets the definition of "Christian". This renders the rest of your argument meaningless drivel.
> > >
> > > I'm going to tell you for the 18th time that I DO NOT argue that Hitler was a Christian, because of the substantial circumstantial evidence against that possibility. Stop lying about my position. That's a sin, Ray. And you can't plead ignorance. You are being a bad Christian right now, Ray, because you are in the midst of a sin. But you ARE still a Christian.
> > >
> > Your criteria for establishing Christianity, expressing belief in the Divinity of Christ, renders Hitler a Christian.
> >
> > > I do not care to "slander Christ," nor even to denigrate Christianity. If someone wants to believe in Christianity, that's their business. I have a lot of friends and family who are Christians, and I don't love them any less for it. I am simply saying -- have consistently BEEN saying -- that Christians are no more no less capable of doing terrible things than anyone else. It isn't slander to say that Christians are just like the rest of it.
> > >
> > Christians are known for building schools and hospitals, feeding poor people, and getting killed by nonbelievers for proclaiming Christ.
>
> Christians are also known for shooting up women's health clinics, burning "witches," the Crusades, and the Inquisition. Christians, like anyone else, are capable of both wonderful and horrible acts.
>

One is not following Christ or even believing in Christ when committing any crime. When a person, for example, commits murder that person is denying Christ, betraying Christ, and serving Satan. Moreover, when a person says a believer remains a Christian while committing murder, which Sean has clearly said, then this person has slandered Christ and is shown to be serving Satan who is evil; Christ of course is good. One cannot say Christ approves of evil or has led any one to do evil. That is, one cannot say that Christ functions as the Devil. Sean has not accounted for Satan in his theology. Satan of course is a major biblical personage. The fact that Sean aligns acts of evil with Christ, and not with Satan, supports the existence of Satan and the fact that Sean is doing his bidding happily with no awareness of the fact. The strength of this conclusion is based on the fact that Satan is a major biblical personage as is his function, yet Sean has not accounted for the role of Satan as Temptor and Deceiver.

Ray

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

rOn Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:36:48 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

Here's me, innocently saying that one can only know a person's beliefs
by their statements, that Ray, as well as Dembski, Behe and Miller
convey their beliefs by thse statements.

Nothing difficult about thtat, but Ray, the "Hammer of Atheists"(TM)
has to attack my poor little self, calling me, among other things, a
"brazen liar."

I have to admit that I was comforted by Ray's characterisation, having
felt left out of the distinguished company of "brazen liars,' whiçch
according to my rough estimate encompasses almost all the contributors
to TO.

Now Ray knows, or ought to know, that there are lies and lies.

Here, for instance, is old Martin Luther., quoted by Lenz:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake
of the good and for the Christian church? [...] a lie out of
necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against
God, he would accept them."



"What would it matter if, for the sake of the Christian Church, one
were to tell a big lie?"

I'd love Ray to tell us which lies he thinks acceptable.

Maybe characterisinng everyone you disagree with as "Atheist?"


Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[Sean Dillon]

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 12:20:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 7:55:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:55:02 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:00:04 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-8, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 10:00:02 PM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:11:14 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > > > > > > > <r3p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >In order to escape the horrendous "Show trimmed content" format defect in the other ongoing topic, I've decided to create this continuation topic. In the ongoing topic the Atheists----Sean, Bill Rogers, and Bob C. have argued that a Christian is any person who expresses verbal belief in the Divinity of Christ or the Apostle's Creed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >In response I have countered that the verbal assent criteria means ANYONE can claim Christianity, even a mass murderer, or a person who has an ax to grind. The Bible, on the other hand, does lay out a criteria as to who is following Christ? Said criteria is evidence-based. So like any other claim about reality, who is a genuine Christian must have evidence in support. But Sean argues otherwise. He says a claim of Christianity is exempt from normal evidentiary standards.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Ray
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You are correct that mass murder is a sin.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thus one is not a Christian while they are murdering.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope. Christians are Christians, even when they are sinning. That all Christians ARE sinners is a central teaching of Christianity.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sean's ignorance of basic Christian theology seen clearly. Yes all Christians are sinners and remain sinners until death. The preceding speaks of the inherited capacity to sin. Christians are dual-natured. Other places in the Bible establish that when a Christian sins or commits trespasses he or she is not following Christ, but Satan. The devil tempts us to sin. The same is well known and established Christian theology. Thus when we sin, whether for a moment or for years, we are not following Christ. The Bible clearly portrays the situation via the Apostle Peter. One moment he is following Christ, the next moment he is following Satan, then a moment later he is following Christ again. Sean deliberately ignores and/or misrepresents these detailed claims of fact because he wants Hitler and McVeigh to remain followers of Christ while actually committing mass murder. It serves the Atheist agenda to slander Christ which shows that the devil is alive and well doing his job.
> > > >
> > > > Ray: I'm not even going to bother arguing with your misinterpretation of the "Peter incident," because it is irrelevant to the point at hand. You are self-servingly mis-defining "Christian." A Christian is a person who BELIEVES in Christianity. That's what the word "Christian" denotes. Whether or not a person is "following" Christ at any given time simply isn't germane to whether one meets the definition of "Christian". This renders the rest of your argument meaningless drivel.
> > > >
> > > > I'm going to tell you for the 18th time that I DO NOT argue that Hitler was a Christian, because of the substantial circumstantial evidence against that possibility. Stop lying about my position. That's a sin, Ray. And you can't plead ignorance. You are being a bad Christian right now, Ray, because you are in the midst of a sin. But you ARE still a Christian.
> > > >
> > > Your criteria for establishing Christianity, expressing belief in the Divinity of Christ, renders Hitler a Christian.
> > >
> > > > I do not care to "slander Christ," nor even to denigrate Christianity. If someone wants to believe in Christianity, that's their business. I have a lot of friends and family who are Christians, and I don't love them any less for it. I am simply saying -- have consistently BEEN saying -- that Christians are no more no less capable of doing terrible things than anyone else. It isn't slander to say that Christians are just like the rest of it.
> > > >
> > > Christians are known for building schools and hospitals, feeding poor people, and getting killed by nonbelievers for proclaiming Christ.
> >
> > Christians are also known for shooting up women's health clinics, burning "witches," the Crusades, and the Inquisition. Christians, like anyone else, are capable of both wonderful and horrible acts.
> >
> One is not following Christ or even believing in Christ when committing any crime.

Those are two separate claims. The prior (that one is not following Christ) is arguable, depending on whether you mean at that moment, or in general.

The latter on the other hand (that one is not believing in Christ), is utterly untrue. A person does not change one's mind about whether the tenets of Christianity are true, depending on one's behavior. I can verify this first-hand, because -- as I've stated before -- I WAS once a Christian, and I know I committed sinful actions during that time. And yet, none of those actions led to a change in the beliefs I held.

> When a person, for example, commits murder that person is denying Christ, betraying Christ, and serving Satan. Moreover, when a person says a believer remains a Christian while committing murder, which Sean has clearly said, then this person has slandered Christ and is shown to be serving Satan who is evil; Christ of course is good. One cannot say Christ approves of evil or has led any one to do evil. That is, one cannot say that Christ functions as the Devil. Sean has not accounted for Satan in his theology. Satan of course is a major biblical personage. The fact that Sean aligns acts of evil with Christ, and not with Satan, supports the existence of Satan and the fact that Sean is doing his bidding happily with no awareness of the fact. The strength of this conclusion is based on the fact that Satan is a major biblical personage as is his function, yet Sean has not accounted for the role of Satan as Temptor and Deceiver.

This entire screed comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of "Christian." A Christian is a person who believes in the tenets of Christianity, period. Being a "Christian" does not, in and of itself, denote that a person is morally good, or behaving correctly, or successfully following Christ at any given moment.

How one is behaving or whether one is "following" Christ or Satan at any given moment is simply not germane to the question of the definition of the word "Christian." A Christian who is trespassing (aka following Satan) is simply a bad Christian. Their beliefs have not changed, so neither has their religion

There are good Christians in the world, there are bad ones. There are good atheists in the world, there are bad ones. Deal with it, Ray.

[Sean Dillon]

Let me boil this down even further, Ray. Here are the definitions for you, Ray:

Christian: A person who believes the tenets of Christianity
Good Christian: A person who believes the tenets of Christianity and follows Christ's teachings well.
Bad Christian: A person who believes the tenets of Christianity, but follows Christ's teachings badly.
Theist: Any person who believes a god or gods exist, whether the Christian God or any other(s).
Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of ANY god, including but not exclusively the Christian one.

Examples:
Fred Rogers? Overall, a good Christian.
Timothy McVeigh? Overall, a bad Christian.
Albert Einstein? Theist, but not a Christian.
Carl Sagan? Atheist, and overall a good person.
Joseph Stalin? Atheist, and overall a bad person.
Adolph Hitler? We can't really know for sure, but definitely a bad person, and probably not a Christian.

Get it? See, it isn't hard to pick out the bad people... the ones "following Satan", in your parlance. But it has nothing to do with whether they accept the tenets of Christianity as true, which is the qualifier to be a Christian.