But he's one of those dirty Catholics, so you know he can't be trusted.
Yaeger,Catholicism (RCC) = Not Christian Catholics = Possible Christian Any denomination = Possible ChristianSola Scriptura = Christian
I think I get the joke of this blog. Nice parody. I couldn't quite tell at first.
And I still submit that a belief in Christ is all that is required to be a Christian.Catholicism (RCC) = ChristianCatholics = ChristianAny denomination = ChristianSola Scriptura = Christian
I'll play along though, hey check this blog article, it takes Catholics(RCC) to task for attributing divinity to Mary and subjugating Jesus to a minor deity http://catholics are not christians.blogspot.com/2009/04/mary-the-new-jesus.htm
Likewise, there are some categories with in the "atheist genre" which I may dislike, but I still can't say they aren't atheist.Buddhists are atheists, yet they believe in reincarnation. To men, this is hogwash.There are atheists who convert to another religion. I don't say "they were never an atheist". Perhaps they didn't understand the implications, but they most certainly were an atheist.And while atheists are largely skeptics, it is even possible for someone to be atheist yet believe in palm reading, ghosts, aliens, conspiracy theories.All of these categories are atheists, whether I like it or not. They all claim to have no belief in gods and would fall under the umbrella of atheist.So basically, Dan, while you may not agree with Catholicism, they still believe that Jesus was the Christ which makes me Christians.If a new sect pops up that has ritual amputation as a cornerstone and believes that Jesus was the Christ, then they are Christians.If we atheists have to have the Raëlians in our camp, the Catholics are nothing to complain about.
"To men" should have been "to me". Sorry, ladies, if it's hogwash to you too.
1. Catholicism (RCC) = Not Christian2. Catholics = Possible Christian3. Any denomination = Possible Christian4. Sola Scriptura = Christian(numbering mine)...but Dan is prepared to denounce as a False Convert™ anyone who follows (4) and later rejects it. So, by the above statement, coupled with Dan's criteria for determining False Converts™, there is such a thing as an ex-Christian.Perhaps Dan should alter his list as follows:4. Sola Scriptura = Possible ChristianBut wait! This means that a person's status as a True Christian™ cannot be determined! I guess that makes Dan, El Dani, Sye, Ray, and all the rest merely Possible Christians™. I guess I'm glad that's finally settled. There are no True Christians™, at the very least until Judgment Day™. The best Dan can offer is a possible avenue to True Christianity™, which is, of course, a tease. Dan actually offers Possible Christianity™ dressed up -- the fine print often gets omitted, but it is implied in his "reasoning" for denouncing persons such as myself as having been False Converts™, despite at one time holding to Sola Scriptura.Again, this boils down to the latent inability of True Christians™ to identify one another -- even themselves! -- with any degree of accuracy, and this in turn explains quite nicely why Dan cannot definitively say whether or not he believes El Dani is a True Christian™, or whether he is an insane, though generally functional, nutjob.El Dani, in the previous thread, admitted much the same when he accidentally implied, then explicitly admitted, that he is not sure Ray is a True Christian™ -- he "trusts" that Ray is following the invisiblest part of god, and "prays" that he is being led by same, but he unwittingly admitted his doubt.Of course, both Dans will likely produce their tagline, that "good trees bear good fruit," but this is disingenuous -- a good tree also occasionally produces bad fruit, just as a bad tree occasionally produces good fruit. Moreover, a tree which has always produced good fruit may nonetheless one day cease to do so (and get cursed by Jesus, I imagine). In all respects, such a tree will be considered a "good tree" up until it exhibits "bad tree" behavior. Yet again, then, we see that the notion of a "good tree" (a True Christian™) is tentative, and is quite arbitrary -- at the least, it is time-dependent; it is based on the time at which the determination has been made.In my own case, were Dan and I to have been acquainted ~15 years ago, he would quite appropriately found me to be a True Christian™; he would not once have called me a False Convert™, up until the point at which I explicitly de-converted. This arbitrary standard, then, is both frivolous and foolhardy -- it is necessarily inaccurate, and it is therefore useless.Thus, finally, I return to the recognition that Dan, El Dani, Ray, Sye, et al, are not True Christians™, but Possible Christians™ -- which are themselves indistinguishable from Possibly Delusional™.Thanks for clearing that up, Dan.--StanP.S. - Is anyone else noticing formatting issues surrounding HTML tags and carriage returns / line feeds?
I noticed that if your URL is too long, it'll make the HTML wide up too much. But no biggie.I love you Stan! When you combine the notion that you were never truly a Christian if you "fall away" and the nebulous criteria for being a Christian in the first place, how can anyone tell what is or isn't a Christian?And why am I even wasting my time here, that I do wonder about.
Okay, so there evidently is a formatting bug which has inexplicably surfaced on Blogger. When using any allowed HTML tag (<b>, <i>, <a href="someURL">), the carriage returns / line feeds immediately following the tag are eliminated.To correct for this, type a space immediately following the HTML tag -- I would recommend an explicitly non-breaking space -- before any expected carriage return / line feed.To generate a non-breaking space, type the following: This should correct any formatting caused by this bug.You may now return to your previously scheduled Danbunking.--Stan
Slight correction to the above:Place the after any HTML tag -- after the </i>, for instance.So again, correctly formatting the following:Dan said some nonsense And I debunked it.Will require typing the following:<i>Dan said some nonsense</i> And I debunked it.Nothing follows.--Stan
I will wait until after I stop laughing to comment...this may take a while...I noticed the bug also. Very observant you nerd, said geek.In my own case, were Dan and I to have been acquainted ~15 years ago, he would quite appropriately found me to be a True Christian™Maybe not. I might have noticed some real flaw in your faith. Like you questioning it all the time, no telling. You do know doubt itself is the catalyst for atheism right?I know one thing for sure if we were friends back then I would fight very hard to show you salvation. I would ninja witness to you daily. I wish you had passionate Christians, like myself, around you. Oh and Yaeger,And I still submit that a belief in Christ is all that is required to be a Christian.Can one still be in sin and still be a Christian? What if someone is sleeping around on their wife continually but going to church "playing the part?" Are they considered a Christian. Is that fruit of a Christian? Even Satan "believed" in Christ.I believed in Christ for years and the whole time I was a false convert because I was living a life for sin.
Maybe not. I might have noticed some real flaw in your faith. You're kidding, right? Are you seriously saying that you have gaydar for False Converts™?Oh, and good job completely ignoring the point -- that you can't reliably tell the difference between False Converts™ and True Christians™ until after some action which identifies the prospect as a False Convert™. Additionally, you must admit that being a False Convert™ is a necessarily time-dependent thing -- subject to change if the False Convert™ re-converts, and this time becomes a True Christian™. In fact, I believe I remember you describing yourself in like fashion, regarding your initial "conversion."You cannot know that anyone is a True Christian™, and thus the best you can hope for is Possible Christian™, which is indistinguishable from False Convert™. You would have identified me as a True Christian™, just like you currently identify any number of Possible Christians™ as True Christians™ -- you'd be forced to admit this if any of them deconverted.Like you questioning it all the time, no telling. ...Except that I didn't question it. I lived the Sola Scriptura life, with my own sins and struggles, but with an honest desire to follow Christ. Your presumptions here are false and mildly offensive (but I'm a big boy, I can handle it).You do know doubt itself is the catalyst for atheism right? Wait, you meant "lack of evidence," right? Perhaps "blatantly immoral actions explicitly endorsed"? "Subjugation of women, and misogyny in general"? "Discrimination and bigotry"?I suspect, if nothing else, that the lack of self-criticism, and propensity for dishonesty, are catalysts for Theism...--Stan
Stan,Are you seriously saying that you have gaydar for False Converts™? Yes, the "gaydar" is appropriately detected by the "fruit." ;7)We have been through this but as it says in Matthew 7:18 a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. No matter how hard you try you will not show the fruit of a Christian. (Galatians 5:22-24)Would you show a repentance if you find that you are not showing such fruit? Would you make a conscience effort to change if it is revealed that you are not showing that righteous fruit? That is the real difference between Christians and people like you. Unless you claim a desire to stop, or change when you do things in a evil manner, then it is obvious. We can see the fruit, especially in your case, according to Mark 4:5, Luke 8:6, Matthew 13:6, Mark 4:16, Luke 8:13
Yes, the "gaydar" is appropriately detected by the "fruit." ;7) ...which was, at the time in question, what you would rightly have determined to be "good fruit."Try as you might, you cannot escape the fact that you cannot identify a person as a True Christian™ until after a decidedly non-Christian action. You cannot therefore, accurately identify True Christians™ from Possible Christians™, or from Likely Delusionals™ or False Converts™, except for those cases in which the person in question has explicitly made clear that he is not a Christian.Once again, your assertion that True Christians™ enjoy a lifetime membership is false. I have shown, with the aid of your unwitting "reasoning," that at best True Christians™, complete with the alleged lifetime memberships, are undetectable, except after their deaths -- in which case the notion is moot. Were you here honest, you would admit that El Dani, Sye, Ray, and all of your cronies are, at best, Possible Christians™; you cannot presume to know that they may not choose to stray at some point in the future, thus, by your "reasoning," rendering them as having been False Converts™.In the case of El Dani, if/when his prediction(s) fail to obtain, you will be forced to admit that he was, at the time of the predictions, not a True Christian™, despite your tentative embrace. Likewise, Sye may very well kill himself in the near future, when his bottled-up guilt from his [pathological] lying overcomes him. When that sad event occurs, you will again be forced to admit his status as False Convert™, rather than True Christian™. Ray, not to be ignored, may someday learn to read, and as a natural consequence, he may shrug off the Christian musings with which he surrounds himself. When this takes place, he, too, will need reclassification as having been a False Convert™ rather than True Christian™."By their fruits..." But what if those fruits are, by your own standards, "good"? What if they later turn out to be "bad"? Will you not admit that you cannot actually know who is and who is not a True Christian™? Will you not admit that everyone -- even yourself -- who today exhibits the proper fruit of True Christianity™ may nonetheless tomorrow exhibit the proper fruit of the False Convert™?You must! To do otherwise is to a) deny any notion of free will whatsoever, and b) claim omniscience.--Stan
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Stan,Try as you might, you cannot escape the fact that you cannot identify a person as a True Christian™ until after a decidedly non-Christian action. I will give you that one for the moment. Until the fruit is mature then we cannot tell. But you may be deluded to think that God cannot show that fruit at any given time. Take Ted Haggard, he seemed very fake to me. Then the news came out and my feelings were confirmed. My gaydar literally was spot on. I was in the Navy after all.Until someone walks off the path then how would anyone know that they are doing so? Christianity is not a goal but a journey. In that same breath though, no one is able to fake that path. Even slick talkers like Ted eventually are found out. God will see to it. I can back that up with verses but you probably already know more then I."By their fruits..." But what if those fruits are, by your own standards, "good"? Who said it was by "my" standards? The fruits are clearly explain in that Good Book.In the case of El Dani, if/when his prediction(s) fail to obtain, you will be forced to admit that he was, at the time of the predictions, not a True Christian™, despite your tentative embrace. Fair. If it was not 'of God' then it certainly is of the Devil.Likewise, Sye may very well kill himself in the near future, when his bottled-up guilt from his [pathological] lying overcomes him. Cute but who said that people that commit suicide do not go to heaven? I don't know, but John MacArthur believes they do. I don't think that is a risk, following John's advice, anyone should take.Will you not admit that everyone -- even yourself -- who today exhibits the proper fruit of True Christianity™ may nonetheless tomorrow exhibit the proper fruit of the False Convert™?You must! To do otherwise is to a) deny any notion of free will whatsoever, and b) claim omniscience. You might want to listen to Bahnsen's take on that. It is quite interesting and I could not do it justice to try to repeat it here. God did foreordained things with free will also. How that was achieved is a mystery.
Whoa . . . by re-watching this clip on your blog I just realized how it is that conservatives and Christians believe that Stephen Colbert is actually defending the Christian(and Catholic)-right. You need to watch the whole show.He's joking.His arguments are humorous exaggerations of typical, illogical Christian defenses to reasonable criticisms of the Bible.
brandon,Yes, Colbert is an Poe Master and using him to defend anything Christian is like using bucket of mud to wash your hands. Either way the point was still made, and made it entertaining to boot.
Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>