PDA

View Full Version : Pope's comments/What is a Christian?



Rincewind
24-12-2008, 09:21 AM
This is sort of on topic...

Gay groups attack Pope's comments (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20081223/tuk-gay-groups-attack-pope-s-comments-6323e80.html)

The headline is a bit sensationalist and portrays the gays at the aggressor, attacking the Pope. However, the commentary is nor they disagree with the Pope and fear that his comments will provide justification of homophobic violence.

I think the comments of Mark Dowd are particularly intelligent...

Mark Dowd, campaign strategist at Operation Noah, the Christian group campaigning against climate change, who is gay and a former Dominican friar, said the Pope's remarks were "understandable but misguided and unfortunate".

He said he understood the Pope's vision of creation in which rainforests were protected and men and women "complement one another, reproduce and live happily ever after".

But he said: "The problem is that if you study ecology seriously as any intelligent man would do, and the Pope is a fantastically intelligent man, you realise that ecology is complex, it has all sorts of weird interdependencies and it is the same with human sexuality.

"It is not a one size fits all model, there are lots of differences, so therefore I think it is really sad that these comments betray a lack of openness to the complexity of creation."

Capablanca-Fan
24-12-2008, 10:42 AM
The headline is a bit sensationalist and portrays the gays at the aggressor, attacking the Pope. However, the commentary is nor they disagree with the Pope and fear that his comments will provide justification of homophobic violence.
Yet there isn't the slightest thing in the pope's words that encourage violence. These gay whingers should look in the mirror, since it's gays who are acting violently or intimidating supporters of marriage = one man + one woman. Christophobic violence on the other hand is real, e.g. the arson of Sarah Palin's church, and Islamic countries with the death penalty for conversion to Christ.

Good on the Pope. On Yes Prime Minister, it was noted that politicians want to talk morality and clergy wanted to talk politics. So it's good to see the Pope unashamed to defend biblical morality "(how radical, the Pope is Catholic!). Here is an article about it (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08122301.html):


In thousands of news articles and talk shows around the world today from Bulgaria to India, Pope Benedict XVI is being bashed for daring to say we should care as much for mankind as the tropical rainforests; that the harm caused by going against the Creator's plan for human sexuality is destructive and hurtful. In truth, he is being pilloried for having enough love to tell his brothers and sisters struggling with same-sex attraction, promiscuity, pornography, adultery and more, that their behavior is hurting them and society at large. It is hurting them physically, psychologically, but most importantly — hurting them spiritually....

Interesting to note is the fact that nowhere in the Pope's remark did he even use the word 'homosexual' or 'homosexuality', rather he referred to 'gender' and to the Creator's plan for human sexuality as being in life-long marriage between one man and one woman. In this respect, he spoke not only to the problem of homosexual acts but also other sexual aberrations such as sex outside of marriage, adultery, pornography, and even contraceptive sex. This is borne out by the fact, unreported by the mainstream media, that within the speech he urged the faithful to re-read the encyclical Humanae Vitae — known most for its prohibition of contraception.

Hence, our coverage of the Pope's message yesterday was headlined "Pope's Christmas Greeting Says We Must 'Protect the Human Being against Self-Destruction' of Sexual Aberration". (see coverage here (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08122213.html))


I think the comments of Mark Dowd are particularly intelligent...
Not at all. Nothing new here; move on. Just another rabid lefty securist pseudo-Christian, just like that moron Spong, refuted at http://creationontheweb.com/spong.


Mark Dowd, campaign strategist at Operation Noah, the Christian group campaigning against climate change, who is gay and a former Dominican friar, said the Pope's remarks were "understandable but misguided and unfortunate".
Typical. When the Pope compromises on evolution, the likes of Rincy claims he's enlightened. When the Pope defends traditional morality, it's "this old man should keep his morals to himself" or some such.

Desmond
24-12-2008, 12:05 PM
Is the Pope a Christian according to your definition, Jono?

Adamski
24-12-2008, 12:45 PM
Is the Pope a Christian according to your definition, Jono?Yes - as long as (and I really would be surprised if this was not so) he accepts Jesus Christ as His personal Lord and Saviour.

Is the Pope a Catholic? Yes.:)

Rincewind
24-12-2008, 12:47 PM
Yes - as long as (and I really would be surprised if this was not so) he accepts Jesus Christ as His personal Lord and Saviour.

I think he meant the other Jono. ;)

Adamski
24-12-2008, 12:58 PM
I think he meant the other Jono. ;)True, but I could not resist!

Desmond
24-12-2008, 01:34 PM
Yes - as long as (and I really would be surprised if this was not so) he accepts Jesus Christ as His personal Lord and Saviour.

Is the Pope a Catholic? Yes.:)If that is your criterion, then I think you are a lot more inclusive than the other Jono.

Capablanca-Fan
24-12-2008, 06:06 PM
If that is your criterion, then I think you are a lot more inclusive than the other Jono.
Why, it's my criterion too? But what do you and Rincy care about who I think are Christians?

Rincewind
25-12-2008, 10:47 AM
Why, it's my criterion too? But what do you and Rincy care about who I think are Christians?

You use the word a lot in posts here and so it is important to know what you mean by the term.

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2008, 11:19 AM
You use the word a lot in posts here and so it is important to know what you mean by the term.
My comment "how radical, the Pope is Catholic!" was a play on the common riposte "Is the Pope Catholic?" to a question where the answer is an obvious affirmative.

A Christian must believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, died for his sins, and rose physically from the dead.

Rincewind
25-12-2008, 11:46 AM
A Christian must believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, died for his sins, and rose physically from the dead.

Ok so you exclude some faiths which follow Christ but don't believe the trinity dogma or the bodily resurrection.

Also by died for his sins, I assume by his you mean the christian and not Jesus. So is original sin a necessary tenet for you to consider someone a christian. Or could it just be personal sins committed by the individual?

Spiny Norman
25-12-2008, 01:21 PM
I used to have a pat respose to the question "Who is a Christian", but the more I think about it, the less satisfactory that response looks to me. So I will approach it like this:

An Australian is a citizen of Australia ... and/or someone who lives in Australia, or who strongly identifies themself as belonging to Australia.

A Victorian can be defined likewise ...

So perhaps a useful popular definition of a Christian is someone who belongs to Christ, who is part of the Body of Christ (a mystical definition if ever I have seen one).

Can I tie this down to particular theologies? I'm not sure I can, although I have much sympathy for Jono's position/description.

Christ knows those that are His. They are the Christians. Whether we can definitively know who they are, I am unsure, but I suspect we cannot. There are some clear cut cases of those who are not, but there are also plenty of examples of those who we might think are His and they turn out not to be so ... and then there are those where we probably cannot be sure one way or another.

Let he who is without theological error cast the first stone! ;)

CameronD
25-12-2008, 02:58 PM
I used to have a pat respose to the question "Who is a Christian", but the more I think about it, the less satisfactory that response looks to me. So I will approach it like this:

An Australian is a citizen of Australia ... and/or someone who lives in Australia, or who strongly identifies themself as belonging to Australia.

A Victorian can be defined likewise ...

So perhaps a useful popular definition of a Christian is someone who belongs to Christ, who is part of the Body of Christ (a mystical definition if ever I have seen one).

Can I tie this down to particular theologies? I'm not sure I can, although I have much sympathy for Jono's position/description.

Christ knows those that are His. They are the Christians. Whether we can definitively know who they are, I am unsure, but I suspect we cannot. There are some clear cut cases of those who are not, but there are also plenty of examples of those who we might think are His and they turn out not to be so ... and then there are those where we probably cannot be sure one way or another.

Let he who is without theological error cast the first stone! ;)


I would just say that an Australian is a citizan of Australian. Identifing with Australia doesn't make you an Australia. Living in Australia doesn't make you an Australian, it requires citizenship.

17Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. 18For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. 20But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2008, 03:45 PM
Ok so you exclude some faiths which follow Christ but don't believe the trinity dogma or the bodily resurrection.
Definitely.


Also by died for his sins, I assume by his you mean the christian and not Jesus.
Of course, because Jesus is without sin.


So is original sin a necessary tenet for you to consider someone a christian.
Something can be a Christian doctrine yet not be believed by all Christians. I gave the bare minimum required. One can be wrong about lots of things, but being wrong about the Deity of Christ and His Resurrection is wrong enough to lose one's soul for eternity.


Or could it just be personal sins committed by the individual?
Jesus died for all sins a believer would ever commit.

Rincewind
25-12-2008, 04:01 PM
Ok. Well by your definition we definitely have orthodox Catholics and Lutherans. Which means that the population of 1930s Germany was overwhelmingly Christian (approximately 1/3 Catholic and 2/3 Lutherans).

However, your definition is still narrower than Christian in a broader sense of anyone venerating Jesus Christ. Some of whom deny the divinity of Jesus, the trinity or bodily resurrection.

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2008, 04:03 PM
Ok. Well by your definition we definitely have orthodox Catholics and Lutherans. Which means that the population of 1930s Germany was overwhelmingly Christian (approximately 1/3 Catholic and 2/3 Lutherans).
Not at all, since liberal theology was rife, which denied both the deity and resurrection.


However, your definition is still narrower than Christian in a broader sense of anyone venerating Jesus Christ. Some of whom deny the divinity of Jesus, the trinity or bodily resurrection.
They are not Christians then. Their theology is not much different from that in many German churches around the time of the rise of the Nazis.

Rincewind
25-12-2008, 04:07 PM
So perhaps a useful popular definition of a Christian is someone who belongs to Christ, who is part of the Body of Christ (a mystical definition if ever I have seen one).

Can I tie this down to particular theologies? I'm not sure I can, although I have much sympathy for Jono's position/description.

Christ knows those that are His. They are the Christians. Whether we can definitively know who they are, I am unsure, but I suspect we cannot. There are some clear cut cases of those who are not, but there are also plenty of examples of those who we might think are His and they turn out not to be so ... and then there are those where we probably cannot be sure one way or another.

Let he who is without theological error cast the first stone! ;)

I don't think theology comes into it. I'm happy to define anyone who venerates Christ in some way to be called a christian.

However, for the purposes of some arguments a precise understanding of what Jono means when he uses the term is necessary to avoid talking cross-purposes. For example, I assert that the population of pre-war Germany was overwhelmingly Christian as more than 90% of the population professed to be either Lutheran or Catholic.

Jono denies this as he has the testimony of one man who says he didn't see any "biblical" christianity in Germany when he was there. The question arises does Jono even consider orthodox Catholicism and Lutheranism as valid forms of Christianity or not. The next question is what did this guy mean by "biblical" christianity.

Rincewind
25-12-2008, 04:08 PM
Not at all, since liberal theology was rife, which denied both the deity and resurrection.

Prove it.

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2008, 05:58 PM
Prove it.
It's a matter of history that liberal theology began in Germany and denied the fundamentals of the Christian faith. I've also cited Ernst Mayr who said that biblical Christianity was practically non-existent.

Same in America: there was much support for eugenics in the liberal clergy, as Christine Rosen documents in her book Preaching Genetics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement [Oxford University Press, New York, 2004], showing eugenicists:


‘included Protestants of nearly every denomination, Jews and Catholics, and they overwhelmingly represented the liberal wings of their respective faiths. … They were the ministers, priests, and rabbis who were inspired by the developments of modern science and accepted much of the new historical criticism of the Bible. … Supporters ranged from high-ranking clerics to small-town ministers in the Methodist, Unitarian, Congregational, Protestant Episcopal, Baptist and Presbyterian churches.’

‘In eugenics, these men found a faith stronger than their Christianity, fulfilling Francis Galton’s hopes of replacing religion with eugenics.’

‘Looking back one might expect to find a little more hesitation from religious leaders before they offered their support to a movement that … replaced God with science as the shaper of the human race.’

In contrast, she writes:


‘Those who clung stubbornly to tradition, to doctrine, and to biblical infallibility opposed eugenics and became, for a time, the objects of derision for their rejection of this most modern science.’

I.e. the type of Christian (aka true biblical Christian) that Rincy hates opposed eugenics, while the wishy-washy ones who despised the Bible loved eugenics.

Oepty
25-12-2008, 07:11 PM
Definitely.


Of course, because Jesus is without sin.


Something can be a Christian doctrine yet not be believed by all Christians. I gave the bare minimum required. One can be wrong about lots of things, but being wrong about the Deity of Christ and His Resurrection is wrong enough to lose one's soul for eternity.


Jesus died for all sins a believer would ever commit.

Jono, Do you think that the definition you are talking about is the same as asking what is the gospel? If so then isn't a Christian someone who believes the gospel?
Scott

CameronD
25-12-2008, 07:32 PM
Jono, Do you think that the definition you are talking about is the same as asking what is the gospel? If so then isn't a Christian someone who believes the gospel?
Scott

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2008, 08:09 PM
Jono, Do you think that the definition you are talking about is the same as asking what is the gospel? If so then isn't a Christian someone who believes the gospel?
Indeed so, as per CMI's bilblically derived Good News page (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/68/).

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2008, 08:12 PM
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
Yet Rincy and other atheopaths think that because Hitler occasionally claimed to have faith, he must have been a Christian.

Rincewind
25-12-2008, 09:48 PM
It's a matter of history that liberal theology began in Germany and denied the fundamentals of the Christian faith. I've also cited Ernst Mayr who said that biblical Christianity was practically non-existent.

Yes the oft cited Ernst Mayer and his personal anecdote of the lack of "biblical" christianity, whatever that means. Certainly there were some religious movements in Germany in the 1930s and 40s which sought to divorce the old testament from the bible to make it less Jewish. But rather than discard the bible entirely the Nazis clung to the new testament which included all the parts you refer to in your definition of a christian.

Speaking of matters of history. It is a matter of history that certain biblical events most likely never happened or at least there is no documentary evidence for them when we would expect there to be quite a lot. For example the massacre of the innocents by Herod the Great is mentioned by Matthew. This major atrocity is conspicuously absent for every other history that should have mentioned something of it. Perhaps mass amnesia.


Same in America

We weren't discussing America.

Rincewind
25-12-2008, 09:53 PM
Yet Rincy and other atheopaths think that because Hitler occasionally claimed to have faith, he must have been a Christian.

Catch up Jono. The charge is that Hitler used the bible to convince the mostly christian population to persecute the Jews and justify their actions.

Hitler's state of mind no matters of faith are incidental and at this point indeterminable. He certainly wasn't a regular church goer but he did occasionally attend services in the new German church and some people close to Hitler comment that he did read the bible regularly.

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2008, 11:23 PM
Yes the oft cited Ernst Mayer and his personal anecdote of the lack of "biblical" christianity, whatever that means.
Doh! It means Christianity according to the Bible as understood by the proper (grammatical-historical) approach.


Certainly there were some religious movements in Germany in the 1930s and 40s which sought to divorce the old testament from the bible to make it less Jewish. But rather than discard the bible entirely the Nazis clung to the new testament which included all the parts you refer to in your definition of a christian.
Ignoramus: the New Testament is thoroughly Jewish.


Speaking of matters of history. It is a matter of history that certain biblical events most likely never happened
As if you'd know. But the liberal theologians who loved Hitler and eugenics agreed with you.


or at least there is no documentary evidence for them when we would expect there to be quite a lot.
That's where you are wrong.


For example the massacre of the innocents by Herod the Great is mentioned by Matthew. This major atrocity is conspicuously absent for every other history that should have mentioned something of it. Perhaps mass amnesia.
Argument from silence, typical of misotheists. Herod massacred so many that Josephus said there were many more that he didn't record. He murdered his favorite wife Mariamne, and two of his sons, so that Augustus said it would be safer to be his sow than his son (as a nominal follower of Judaism he didn't eat pork), or in the Greek lingua franca of the day, the word play is ὗς (hus) and υἱός (huios). So why would other historians bother to record a relatively low number of boys under 2 in a "little town of Bethlehem" compared to even worse massacres?


We weren't discussing America.
You don't get to restrict topics of conversation, especially as the Nazis looked at the American eugenics program with admiration. See War Against the Weak (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1898/)by Edwin Black.


The charge is that Hitler used the bible to convince the mostly christian population to persecute the Jews and justify their actions.
And as I've pointed out, Lutherans and Catholics did not persecute the Jews outside Germany, and even within Germany the persecution was incited by the likes of evolutionist Teodor Fritsch, a notorious promoter of Aryan racial supremacy and author of The Handbook of the Jewish Question aka the [I]Anti-Semitic Catechism.

Spiny Norman
26-12-2008, 05:10 AM
I would just say that an Australian is a citizan of Australian. Identifing with Australia doesn't make you an Australia. Living in Australia doesn't make you an Australian, it requires citizenship.
The formaility of citizenship is just that ... a formality ... if someone is already an Australian in their heart, a piece of paper doesn't add anything significant, although if being tested in a court of law it would possibly be significant. But for the external casual observer, once would not be able to detect a difference in the persons behaviour, and that is the point I was trying to get across. Christian is as Christian "believes and does", and the casual observer is not always acquainted with the details. So Christ alone can know those who are His, just as the Australian government alone can truly know those that are theirs.

Spiny Norman
26-12-2008, 05:17 AM
Hitler's state of mind no matters of faith are incidental and at this point indeterminable. He certainly wasn't a regular church goer but he did occasionally attend services in the new German church and some people close to Hitler comment that he did read the bible regularly.
I'm curious about something. Lets say I agree for the sake of argument that Hitler believed he was a Christian, secretly believed in Christ in his heart, and thought he was acting in a way that Christians ought to act (I don't think this for a minute of course).

Why would such a revelation be significant? Does anything think that this invalidates Christianity?

If I revealed that someone who was believed to be a leading atheist and scientist held secret beliefs about God and intelligent design, does anyone think that such a revelation says anything sensible at all about either (a) the validity or otherwise of atheism; or (b) the teachings of atheism in respect of God's existence or intelligent design?

Of course not, its preposterous. So I just don't get it: what is the relevance of the current discussion about whether or not Hitler had any beliefs about God or claimed to be a Christian in order to achieve his goals.

Its transparently obvious to even the most committed argumentarian that Hitler's actual behaviours are completely incongruous with even the most uncharitable reading of Christian teachings. :wall:

Rincewind
26-12-2008, 09:44 AM
I'm curious about something. Lets say I agree for the sake of argument that Hitler believed he was a Christian, secretly believed in Christ in his heart, and thought he was acting in a way that Christians ought to act (I don't think this for a minute of course).

The question is not the point of the discussion. The charge is that Hitler used the bible to sell his persecution of the Jews to the predominately christian population.What Hitler believed in his heart of hearts is purely academic.

Rincewind
26-12-2008, 09:59 AM
Doh! It means Christianity according to the Bible as understood by the proper (grammatical-historical) approach.

Ok then so they were christian (believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, died for his sins, and rose physically from the dead), just not your sort of christian (didn't agree with your hyperliteral interpretation and infallibility of the text).


Ignoramus: the New Testament is thoroughly Jewish.

I was just reporting on a very prominent religious movement in 1930s Germany. The point is that could all be done while still believing that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, died for his sins, and rose physically from the dead. Therefor by your definition satisfying the minimum requirement for inclusion in Christianity.


As if you'd know. But the liberal theologians who loved Hitler and eugenics agreed with you.

You brought up things being "a matter of history". You are happy to do so when it suits you but not if anything disagrees with the bible.


That's where you are wrong.

In what way, that there is no evidence? Certainly well respected scholars like Geza Vermes disagrees with you.


Argument from silence, typical of misotheists. Herod massacred so many that Josephus said there were many more that he didn't record. He murdered his favorite wife Mariamne, and two of his sons, so that Augustus said it would be safer to be his sow than his son (as a nominal follower of Judaism he didn't eat pork), or in the Greek lingua franca of the day, the word play is ὗς (hus) and υἱός (huios). So why would other historians bother to record a relatively low number of boys under 2 in a "little town of Bethlehem" compared to even worse massacres?

Royalty killing royalty is very common and not even considered a unusual (killing infant royalty is considered bad form but again there are plenty of cases of that to be considered an occupational hazard). However a king going to a small town and killing every male under the age of two is the sort of thing that people are likely to report.

I don;t want to get into a huge argument about the massacre of the innocents it is just one of the stories in the bible for which there is no evidence and many historians (perhaps most nowadays) think didn't happen. There are many others.


You don't get to restrict topics of conversation, especially as the Nazis looked at the American eugenics program with admiration.

The point you are not willing to concede is that the German population were christian. Your your definition of minimum requirement to be christian they were. If you are ready to concede that you were wrong to call them unchristian then we can move on to these other christian eugenic supporters in America. There is a long tradition of staunch christian anti-semitism and anti-african racism in America.


And as I've pointed out, Lutherans and Catholics did not persecute the Jews outside Germany, and even within Germany the persecution was incited by the likes of evolutionist Teodor Fritsch, a notorious promoter of Aryan racial supremacy and author of The Handbook of the Jewish Question aka the [I]Anti-Semitic Catechism.

That is entirely beside the point. The persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany was a state run atrocity. I never said the church initiated or ran it. All I said was that the population was christian and Hitler used the bible to help justify the program.

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2008, 11:28 AM
Ok then so they were christian (believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, died for his sins, and rose physically from the dead),
How would you know? Theological liberalism was born in Germany, and denied all these. Hence the reaction to liberalism, the original "fundamentalism" before the meaning was distorted, affirmed the following "five fundamentals" of Christianity as a reaction to what the liberals denied (as per the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the USA in 1910):

miracles of Christ
virgin birth of Christ
substitutionary atonement of Christ
bodily resurrection of Christ
inspiration/inerrancy of Scripture



just not your sort of christian (didn't agree with your hyperliteral interpretation and infallibility of the text).
I don't know any "hyperliteralists", except among fundyatheists (http://www.tektonics.org/af/fundyath.html)like you. My correct grammatical-historical interpretation understands historical genre as history, poetic genre as poetry, etc.


In what way, that there is no evidence? Certainly well respected scholars like Geza Vermes disagrees with you.
So what? There are historians who disagree with this anti-Christian axe-grinder too (http://www.tektonics.org/books/vermesrvw01.html).


Royalty killing royalty is very common and not even considered a unusual (killing infant royalty is considered bad form but again there are plenty of cases of that to be considered an occupational hazard). However a king going to a small town and killing every male under the age of two is the sort of thing that people are likely to report.
Reporting on a dozen or so babies towards the end of Herod's brutal reign is not necessarily something that would be reported (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/slaughtinn.html).


I don't want to get into a huge argument about the massacre of the innocents it is just one of the stories in the bible for which there is no evidence and many historians (perhaps most nowadays) think didn't happen.
There is evidence: the reliable report in Matthew's Gospel. All you have is a crass argument from silence.


There are many others.
Ipse dixit.


The point you are not willing to concede is that the German population were christian.
Of course not. Mayr didn't know any biblical Christians, and he lived there unlike you. Theological liberalism was rife.


Your your definition of minimum requirement to be christian they were. If you are ready to concede that you were wrong to call them unchristian then we can move on to these other christian eugenic supporters in America.
Which was supported only by the liberal churches that denied the fundamentals of the faith, not by the Bible-believers.


There is a long tradition of staunch christian anti-semitism and anti-african racism in America.
Much anti-semitism came from the secular progressives, and anti-African racism was caused by slavery. There was a long staunch Christian anti-slavery tradition in America (http://www.classicapologetics.com/special/slaverevolt.html), and while the Reverend MLK led the anti-racism struggle, the Democrat-spawned KKK bombed Baptist churches.


All I said was that the population was christian and Hitler used the bible to help justify the program.
You said wrongly, because I've documented the liberalism, the radical christophobia of leading "final solution" architect Eichmann, and the secular anti-semitic propaganda that was rife before and during the rise of the Nazis.

Rincewind
26-12-2008, 04:22 PM
How would you know? Theological liberalism was born in Germany, and denied all these.

Protestantism was born in Germany which is where Christianity really went off the rails in some people's opinion. Started by the fervently antisemitic Martin Luther. Do you think Luther was a non-christian as well?


Hence the reaction to liberalism, the original "fundamentalism" before the meaning was distorted, affirmed the following "five fundamentals" of Christianity as a reaction to what the liberals denied (as per the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the USA in 1910):

miracles of Christ
virgin birth of Christ
substitutionary atonement of Christ
bodily resurrection of Christ
inspiration/inerrancy of Scripture


What does the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA in 1910 have to do with German Lutherans and Catholics? :wall:


I don't know any "hyperliteralists", except among fundyatheists like you. My correct grammatical-historical interpretation understands historical genre as history, poetic genre as poetry, etc.

As I've already demonstrated in other threads. Your grammatical-historical methodology is arbitrary and far from the only was on interpreting scripture. In fact it is somewhat unorthodox and at odds with the mainstream catholic and protestant interpretations.


So what? There are historians who disagree with this anti-Christian axe-grinder too.

You started using the "matter of history" line of argument. There are plenty of "matters of history" which you deny because they are at odds with your a priori beliefs, even though they have not historical basis. Vermes is by no means alone in doubting the massacre of the innocents, see also Ed Sanders.


Reporting on a dozen or so babies towards the end of Herod's brutal reign is not necessarily something that would be reported.

Maybe, maybe not. But plenty of well-respected historians think otherwise. In fact Meier says that most recent biographies of Herod "deny it entirely".


There is evidence: the reliable report in Matthew's Gospel. All you have is a crass argument from silence.

Just as I said. Not mentioned outside Matthew the first chapter of which is very reaching both in terms of nativity legends and interpretation of old testament "prophecies" being fulfilled by JC.


Ipse dixit.

There are plenty. Another fanciful story is the whole emancipation from Egypt. Absolutely uninformed from a very long and accurate history which the ancient Egyptians have left us.


Of course not. Mayr didn't know any biblical Christians, and he lived there unlike you. Theological liberalism was rife.

Your personal interpretation of anecdotal comment from Mayr is hardly proof of anything. Lutherans and Catholics were the dominate religions and both are christians which conform to your basic definition. Particularly the catholics whose tenets of faith are managed globally.


Which was supported only by the liberal churches that denied the fundamentals of the faith, not by the Bible-believers.

Ipse dixit. All you have quoted is some Presbyterian rubbish from America. If you have something solid on German Lutherans denying the resurrection, cite it.


Much anti-semitism came from the secular progressives, and anti-African racism was caused by slavery. There was a long staunch Christian anti-slavery tradition in America, and while the Reverend MLK led the anti-racism struggle, the Democrat-spawned KKK bombed Baptist churches.

The KKK are stauchly protestant and have been for a long time. Many of the leaders have used the honorific "Pastor" and attended protestant seminaries.


You said wrongly, because I've documented the liberalism, the radical christophobia of leading "final solution" architect Eichmann, and the secular anti-semitic propaganda that was rife before and during the rise of the Nazis.

You've provided nothing. The Germans were Christians and Hitler refered to the bible in Mein Kampf and his public speeches. The fact that Hitler did lean on the bible as heavily as he did is evidence in itself that the population would be convinced by such arguments and therefore reinforces the argument that they were bible believing Christians. If they weren't Christian and Hitler wasn't Christian, they Bible references would have been practically absent.

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2008, 08:10 PM
Protestantism was born in Germany which is where Christianity really went off the rails in some people's opinion. Started by the fervently antisemitic Martin Luther. Do you think Luther was a non-christian as well?
Yes, we all know about Luther’s disgraceful attacks on Jews late in his life. They should not be condoned, but Luther’s antisemitism was totally different to Hitler’s. Luther trashed anyone he saw as an opponent of the Gospel, and his choicest barbs were for the papacy.

But this doesn’t have the slightest indication about mass murder of Jews, and certainly nothing about murdering the disabled, Slavs and gypsies. Hitler cared nothing for the Gospel, and killed Jews just because they were Jews, including quarter of a million Jewish Christians. Luther’s goal was baptism of the Jews, not genocide. Luther’s standard biography (Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, p. 297, Mentor Books, NY, 1950) states:


‘Luther was sanguine that his own reform, by eliminating the abuses of the papacy, would accomplish the conversion of the Jews. But the converts were few, and unstable. When he endeavored to proselytize some rabbis, they undertook in return to make a Jew of him. The rumor that a Jew had been suborned by the papists to murder him was not received with complete incredulity. In Luther’s latter days, when he was often sorely frayed … he came out with a vulgar blast in which he recommended that all Jews be deported to Palestine. Failing that, they should be forbidden to practice usury, should be compelled to earn their living on the land, their synagogues should be burned, and their books including the Bible should be taken away from them.

‘One might wish that Luther had died before ever this tract was written. Yet one must be clear as to what he was recommending and why. His position was entirely religious, and in no respect racial.’
As I said, the Lutheran Churches around the world opposed Hitler, because that was consistent with the biblical interpretation that Luther taught even if he didn't practise it in later life.


What does the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA in 1910 have to do with German Lutherans and Catholics? :wall:
Doh, it goves you an idea what theological liberalism taught; it began in Germany then infested England and America.


Your grammatical-historical methodology is arbitrary and far from the only was on interpreting scripture.
So what, it's the only correct one. And not only for understanding Scripture but anything else. It's when this hermeneutic is abandoned that you find churchian support for evolutionism, racism, eugenics and slavery.


In fact it is somewhat unorthodox and at odds with the mainstream catholic and protestant interpretations.
Not historical ones. St Basil the Great, one of the most admired Church Fathers, in his Hexaëmeron (= ‘Six Days’), nine Lenten sermons on the days of creation in Genesis 1, taught that:

The words are to be understood by their plain meaning, not allegorized.

‘I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel” [Rom. 1:16].’ (Homily IX:1)


To interpret Scripture otherwise is to put ourselves above God, the Holy Spirit, who inspired its writing.

‘It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.’ (Homily IX:1)


You started using the "matter of history" line of argument. There are plenty of "matters of history" which you deny because they are at odds with your a priori beliefs, even though they have not historical basis.
They do, because they are reported in the historical writings that comprise the NT. All you have to naysay this is a crass argument from silence.


Vermes is by no means alone in doubting the massacre of the innocents, see also Ed Sanders.
Much the same anti-Christian axe to grind.


Maybe, maybe not. But plenty of well-respected historians think otherwise. In fact Meier says that most recent biographies of Herod "deny it entirely".
Reference and evidence?

Just as I said. Not mentioned outside Matthew the first chapter of which is very reaching both in terms of nativity legends and interpretation of old testament "prophecies" being fulfilled by JC.
And so they were.


There are plenty. Another fanciful story is the whole emancipation from Egypt. Absolutely uninformed from a very long and accurate history which the ancient Egyptians have left us.
Not if you look in the right place (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1827/) as per scholars like David Rohl.


Your personal interpretation of anecdotal comment from Mayr is hardly proof of anything.
He lived there, you did not.


Lutherans and Catholics were the dominate religions and both are christians which conform to your basic definition.
No, theological liberalism is not Christian but another religion, as Gresham Machen documented in Christianity and Liberalism (1923).


Particularly the catholics whose tenets of faith are managed globally.
Doesn't mean they were accepted in Germany. Modernism occurs in the Catholic church too.


Ipse dixit. All you have quoted is some Presbyterian rubbish from America. If you have something solid on German Lutherans denying the resurrection, cite it.
German liberals in Lutheran churches did.


The KKK are stauchly protestant and have been for a long time.
They certainly aren't fighting over biblical authority, but an unbiblical notion of white supremacy that was taught by evolutionary textbooks like Hunter's Civic Biology, much loved by the ACLU.


Many of the leaders have used the honorific "Pastor" and attended protestant seminaries.
Nonsense. They were a Democratic hangover from slavery, who attacked churches.


You've provided nothing. The Germans were Christians and Hitler refered to the bible in Mein Kampf and his public speeches. The fact that Hitler did lean on the bible as heavily as he did is evidence in itself that the population would be convinced by such arguments and therefore reinforces the argument that they were bible believing Christians.
Heavily? You have to be joking. He could use it so sparingly, or rather misuse it, precisely because biblical authority was hardly at all believed. Blind Freddie's deaf guide dog could discern that Hitler was a counterfeit (do not commit murder, for example). Also, many of the early Nazis were homosexuals (to return to the thread topic), which would be impossible if it were a Christian movement.


If they weren't Christian and Hitler wasn't Christian, they Bible references would have been practically absent.
No, Hitler was relying on German pseudo-Christians not bothering to check them out. He also said of his proposed eugenics measures (invented by Darwin's cousin Galton):


‘It will spare millions of unfortunates undeserved sufferings, and consequently will lead to a rising improvement of health as a whole.’

‘There must be no half-measures. It is a half-measure to let incurably sick people steadily contaminate the remaining healthy ones. This in keeping with the humanitarianism which, to avoid hurting one individual, lets a hundred others perish.’

Rincewind
27-12-2008, 12:26 AM
Not if you look in the right place (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1827/) as per scholars like David Rohl.

David Rohl is conventionally viewed as a bit of a loon who ignores evidence which causes his controversial theory some acute embarrassment. However the really amusing part is the "conclusion" of David Down's article that you linked to. He said...


Thus, there is a conflict between Egyptian chronology as generally interpreted and the Biblical records. Neither the first dynasty of Egypt nor the pyramids could have existed before the Flood. If the Bible is historically reliable, as I believe it is, then there must be a mistake in the usual interpretation of Egyptian chronology which needs to be reduced by centuries.

The message is clear, conventional archeology no matter how consistent and well researched must be wrong because it contradicts the bible which Down believes to be inerrant. Therefore, archeology supports the bible as being historically accurate if it is correctly interpreted (using scripture). Spot the circular argument. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
27-12-2008, 10:40 AM
David Rohl is conventionally viewed as a bit of a loon who ignores evidence which causes his controversial theory some acute embarrassment.
Conventional wisdom is often foolish.



Thus, there is a conflict between Egyptian chronology as generally interpreted and the Biblical records. Neither the first dynasty of Egypt nor the pyramids could have existed before the Flood. If the Bible is historically reliable, as I believe it is, then there must be a mistake in the usual interpretation of Egyptian chronology which needs to be reduced by centuries.
And he gives reasons. He has also shown that Assyrian chronology is out of whack when the traditional second-hand inflated chronology of Manetho is blindly accepted. The conventional chronology also entails "centuries of darkness" in ancient Greece, to give the title of a respected book by Peter James.


The message is clear, conventional archeology no matter how consistent and well researched
This begs the question, as Down shows.


must be wrong because it contradicts the bible which Down believes to be inerrant.
Of course. Rincy and his ilk ignore the biblical data, which is equally a bias.


Therefore, archeology supports the bible as being historically accurate if it is correctly interpreted (using scripture). Spot the circular argument. :lol:
It's an axiomatic argument, but not the only one: there is very good evidence that the conventional chronology doesn't fit with Greece or Assyria properly. Not really surprising, since it blindly accepts Manetho's dynasties as consecutive whereas it was likely that some where concurrent (in Upper and Lower Egypt).

Rincewind
27-12-2008, 10:56 AM
Conventional wisdom is often foolish.

Right, so we should believe everyone who questions decades of good scholarship no the Jono adage of "if it is taught in a university it is most likely wrong".


And he gives reasons. He has also shown that Assyrian chronology is out of whack when the traditional second-hand inflated chronology of Manetho is blindly accepted. The conventional chronology also entails "centuries of darkness" in ancient Greece, to give the title of a respected book by Peter James.

Respected by whom? Certainly he has made little impact in convincing historians.


This begs the question, as Down shows.

If there was good reason to lose 350 years of Egyptian history then it would be mainstream history and not fringe. Rohl and James have had more than a decade to make an impact and there theories were investigated and shown to be wanting. The main problem is they introduce bigger problems than the inconsistencies they seek to solve.


Of course. Rincy and his ilk ignore the biblical data, which is equally a bias.

The fact it is biblical "data" is unreliable. There is no physical evidence and were it true it would require such an enormous shoehorning of history with abundant physical evidence that it is the historical equivilent of an enormous dog being wagged by infinitesimally small tail.


It's an axiomatic argument, but not the only one: there is very good evidence that the conventional chronology doesn't fit with Greece or Assyria properly. Not really surprising, since it blindly accepts Manetho's dynasties as consecutive whereas it was likely that some where concurrent (in Upper and Lower Egypt).

There is much better evidence that Rohl and James are try to make a name for themselves in popular circles and not very interested in convincing scholars there is any merit in their ideas. As I already said, they have been around for more than a decade and failed to make their case.

To quote a real expert Prof Lynn Meskell of Stanford:


The web-site 'Pharaohs and Kings' http://www.netally.com/lds/rohl.html is about pharaohs and kings; at the same time it is a forum for the views of David Rohl, who aims to substantiate the Bible through Egyptian material: his work is not accepted by mainstream Egyptologists on the basis of his scholarship, rather than any anti-religious sentiment.

L Meskell, Electronic Egypt: the shape of archaeological knowledge on the Net, Antiquity, 71 (1997) 1073

Aaron Guthrie
27-12-2008, 08:40 PM
A general comment on the issue of "what makes a Christian". This type of question might be able to be avoided for the purposes of the discussion. If what a Christian is is controversial, then instead of saying Christian, just say "those who consider themselves Christian", or whatever would do for the purposes of the discussion. I think Rincewind has made this point, or something like it, somewhere here but I can't find it now.

Capablanca-Fan
28-12-2008, 12:14 AM
Right, so we should believe everyone who questions decades of good scholarship no the Jono adage of "if it is taught in a university it is most likely wrong".
Chemistry is mostly right; things taught in humanities class mostly wrong, and others in between.


The fact it is biblical "data" is unreliable. There is no physical evidence and were it true it would require such an enormous shoehorning of history with abundant physical evidence that it is the historical equivilent of an enormous dog being wagged by infinitesimally small tail.
An even more waffly ipse dixit than usual by Rincy.


There is much better evidence that Rohl and James are try to make a name for themselves in popular circles and not very interested in convincing scholars there is any merit in their ideas. As I already said, they have been around for more than a decade and failed to make their case.
The noted Cambridge archaeologist Lord Professor Colin Renfrew wrote a forword to James' book Centuries of Darkness: A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology:


"This disquieting book draws attention, in a penetrating and original way, to a crucial period in world history, and to the very shaky nature of the dating... upon which our current interpretations rest. I feel that their critical analysis is right and that a chronological revolution is on its way."

Rincewind
28-12-2008, 01:49 AM
Chemistry is mostly right; things taught in humanities class mostly wrong, and others in between.

Very unbiased appraisal Jono. And here was I thinking you denied all scholarship.


An even more waffly ipse dixit than usual by Rincy.

Not at all just arguing by "matter of history" as per your post #402 (edit: now #19 in this thread). It is a matter of history that most of the older stuff in the old testament is most probably just legend including a world wide flood, Joseph, Moses, plagues on the Egyptians and the emancipation from the Egyptians, Solomon and much much more. Also it is a matter of history that many of the stories in the new testament are also hagiographic particularly the nativity narrative of Matthew.


The noted Cambridge archaeologist Lord Professor Colin Renfrew wrote a forword to James' book Centuries of Darkness: A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology:


"This disquieting book draws attention, in a penetrating and original way, to a crucial period in world history, and to the very shaky nature of the dating... upon which our current interpretations rest. I feel that their critical analysis is right and that a chronological revolution is on its way."

What!?!? A forward in a book with speaks positively about that same book. Unbelievable!!! I thought most authors got their fiercest critics to write the forward. Didn't you get Dawkins to write your forward?

On a more serious note, we note that the book of James et al. has been around for 17 years and the chronological revolution anticipated by Renfrew is still to arrive.

By the way of the two conflicting hypotheses you've cited (James or Rohl) which is the one you think is right? Or are you having an each way bet on two horses (with astronomical odds)?

Kevin Bonham
28-12-2008, 07:32 PM
Moderation notice

Posts split to here as although Rincewind's original post was somewhere near on topic (and likewise for Jono's reply) discussion quickly left anything specifically to do with gay rights issues.

This new thread is pretty much open slather for thread drift given the extent to which posts have wandered around already.

Rincewind
28-12-2008, 08:23 PM
Moderation notice

Posts split to here as although Rincewind's original post was somewhere near on topic (and likewise for Jono's reply) discussion quickly left anything specifically to do with gay rights issues.

This new thread is pretty much open slather for thread drift given the extent to which posts have wandered around already.

Thanks and I apologise for my part. The issue is Jono and I are having three distinct debates across roughly half a dozen threads or so. I think we know where each other is coming from but someone reading a single thread sequentially and in isolation might be somewhat confusled.

antichrist
29-12-2008, 05:44 PM
I am glad the old bastard came out and said what he thinks that gays are as bad as greenhouse effect. As Adele Horin pointed out in the SMH and as I have thought for years, why do the gays bother to stay in a religion that hates them - except to get a job as a priest??

Frankly I don't know why people are interested in what other people do in private, are they afraid they are missing out on the kinky bits. I can fill them in on a lot of lacy stories if they are that way inclined. They must have boring lives to care what other guys do with their penises.

Desmond
29-12-2008, 09:06 PM
Why, it's my criterion too? But what do you and Rincy care about who I think are Christians?You gave me the distinct impression that people were only Christians if they were your type of Christians. Not sure what the exact quote was, will keep an eye out in future. Also your reluctance to answer the question was interesting. Would you say 2 billion worldwide is about right?

Capablanca-Fan
29-12-2008, 09:10 PM
You gave me the distinct impression that people were only Christians if they were your type of Christians.
The comment about the Pope being Catholic was already explained. I've also made it clear what criteria there were for being Christian, and how some are inconsistent.


Not sure what the exact quote was, will keep an eye out in future. Also your reluctance to answer the question was interesting.
Not really. My question still stands: why do atheists like you and Rincy care who I think are Christians.

Desmond
29-12-2008, 09:15 PM
Not really. My question still stands: why do atheists like you and Rincy care who I think are Christians.I asked first, but I'll do you a favour and give you a hint; "care" is overstating it quite significantly.

Adamski
31-12-2008, 03:54 PM
I think this thread should be renamed: "What is A Christian?" The majority of the posts relate to this subject.