svensky

Why do you insist on attacking a straw man ?

The author of the peice should no better than to lump christian scientists, mormons and JW's in with what is considered a christian.

Unless the peice was simply a cheap exercise in points scoring, the author, if he wished to make a case that wasn't written of as such, by any christian that might read it, he should have known that outside of themselves the groups mentioned aren't considered by anybody as christian groups (with the exception of the ill informed).

Does that make it any clearer ?

Jason

-------------------------------------------------
I kind of wish I would reply to this, but there is a standard that all of the groups but the three I mentioned (Well I think all the others would) would agree that the bible provides an absolute standard. They might argue a bit over it, argue a bit over the differences, but the differences between most of them are quite a bit narrower than the author makes out.

The mormons and the JW's wont except on the bible, and the christian scientists are so far out there that the name is unfortunate becasue they having nothing in common with christianity or science (or reality for that matter ).

I think the author is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and is being deliberatly deceptive in an attempt to attack christianity.

There might be some legitimate criticisms to make, but these where not a set of them.

Jason

Jason

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: svensky ]</p>

-DM-

Jason:

Thank you for your revised feedback regarding <a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192" target="_blank">Christian Salvation?</a> by Thomas Doubting. E-mail notification has been sent to the author. You might want to check back from time to time for a possible response from him following this post.

And yes, your revised post makes much clearer what it is that you have in mind.

My comments: Just as they cannot agree on the necessary ingredients for salvation, those who call themselves Christians cannot agree on exactly what it means to be a Christian. While fundamentalist and many mainstream Christian groups consider Christian Science, the Mormon Church, and Jehovah's Witnesses to be cults, each of those so-called cults considers itself to be THE true Christian group. Keep in mind that the fact that you and others may think that you know exactly what does and does not constitute "a Christian" does NOT necessarily make it so. Keep in mind, too, that a member of one of those groups could raise the same objection that you raise, namely that the article included groups which are not truly Christian. Worse, had the author left out any one of those groups, a member of that group could claim that not only did the article include groups which are not Christian groups -- but it failed to include the one, true Christian group. And, in any case, with or without the inclusion of those groups, there is considerable disagreement even amongst the mainstream denominations as to exactly what is required for salvation.

--Don--

Grizzly

Hello Jason,

Why shouldn't these particular christians be lumped together "with what is considered a christian"? They call themselves Christians. Do you not believe they are followers of Christ? What is the Svensky Litmus Test for Christianty(tm)?

Please share!

Grizzly

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Grizzly ]</p>

Lone Wolf

huh?
Then if there's an "absolute standard" that all sects of Xianity go by (except those three), why is there a need for so many denominations? And what makes you believe your particular flavor of Xianity is more valid than the others?

-DM-

[Only Secular Web authors and staff may post replies in the Feedback forum; that is the way that the forum is set up. The Feedback forum is not intended for ongoing discussions. Inasmuch as svensky kept editing his original post, the topic was moved here to make it easier for all concerned. --Don--]

svensky

Is this the same grizzly from ILJ ?

Well there is no question what so ever in my mind that christian scientists should not be counted as christians. Dig a bit your self, you will soon understand why.

As for a simply and relativly broad if inaccurate litmus test.

Do they hold the bible exclusivly as the word of God, with no additional sources of revelation.

This is kind of rough, but from a large group perspective it will group them pretty well.

This would rule the mormons and the JW's out, they insist they have bonus revelation (the book o' mormon and the watch tower magazine).

It would actually be a good test, and I think at least genreally it would included or exclude the right groups.

Before you suggest, use the bible, keep in mind that a broader test such as this would hook new agers or various sorts and muslims, so it does need to be as specific as I suggested.

Is this a good enough litmus test ?

Jason

svensky

Different denominations to a lesser or greater degree is simply different approaches to the same thing.

In case you've never noticed, christians across denominations have a core of beliefs in common and the sort of things they disagree over are often trival, or at least not as important as some people seem to think.

Certianly, how much water to dunk people in for baptism is one of those.

Jason

HelenM

Hi Jason

Of course you know we have interacted on ILJ although pretty much I posted only on the Forum which is now gone so...so much for that...

Realistically I think most Christians would admit that 'salvation' is not conditioned on the belief 'the Bible is the Word of God' (therefore inerrant, etc).

So, whereas I've heard your 'test' as you called it, commonly used to delineate "This is Christian; this is not", I don't think it particularly explains what Christians see as the beliefs necessary for salvation i.e. to make a person a Christian.

Anyway it's rather self-referential to say "everyone who believes what I believe is a Christian". Is that objective enough? How can you know and how can you substantiate that?

If you hadn't inherited/been taught the doctrine "the Bible is the Word of God and therefore authoritative and also it's the only authoritative book" how would you get there? How do you know there's any authoritative book? How do you know there's only one? How do you know the church is not also authoritative?

love
Helen

svensky

I'm literate. Incidentally I did not say it had to be regarded as inerrant (in what ever sense the word was meant), I said exclusive revelation from God. It doesn't have to be inerrant to qualify as a revelation, I would have thought that would have been to strict a criteria despite what I might personally think.

I took exception to certian groups being called christian that by no strech of the imagination are. It really irritated me to see either such woeful ignorace on display from supposedly educated people, or alternativly such a blatant straw man.

I was asked what would be a better test, I suggested one. It isn't perfect, it isn't self referential (it would certianly include groups I do not think should automatically be included), and it is coarse enough to pick up everything that could fairly loosely be described as christian, at the same time as not including things that only the woefully ignorant would mistake as christian.

And when you can show me where I said that, i might agree with you.

Funnily enough I think the book makes that claim of itself. I think the evidence warrants the conclusion. I know you do not.

Jason

HelenM

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>