Radorth

You were first to use the word "allies" Fishbulb. I specifically used Churchill's term "Christian Civilization" and you started jabbering about evil Soviet dictators and how the allies were no angels, etc.

And now you are trying to claim the Soviets were Christians as well. Were the soldiers raised Christian and specifically taught NT ideals? Did they carry Bibles in their pockets? Did they have chaplains to council them?

I believe you would define Christians as Fiach does:

"Anybody I define as such."

Or should we make it "Anyone who's Russian grandmother sat in a Greek Orthodox church pew"?

I know. It's all "rational thinking" where you come from. I call it "rationalized thinking" personally.

Rad

Radorth

My apologies for where I confused you with Fiach, fishbulb. That's what I get for thread-hopping back and forth.

Rad

fishbulb

Fair enough. It is important for everyone to agree on the meaning of key terms in order to have a fruitful discussion.

So, Radorth, I will leave it up to to to make the call: how shall we define "Christian?"

scombrid

I thought he was bipolar.

Radorth

To be called Christian, they ought to at least adhere to the Nicene Creed, and have (or have had I suppose) a personal testimony of the Holy Spirit working in their lives, which they attribute to God's grace.

The problem with all this of course, is that everyone who waves a flag is not a patriot.

Rad

fishbulb

Alright. If that is the definition you want to use, we'll work with that. But I wonder how it is that you can make any sort of broad claims about Christians in that case, since it would seem to be very difficult to identify who is really a Christian and who is simply calls himself a Christian (and may believe he is, by his own definiiton) but has never heard of the Nicene Creed, much less adheres to it, or who has never had a personal experience they attributed to God. It would seem that no one could know for sure if someone else was a Christian, by this definition, and one would seemingly have to have some sort of personal relationship with someone to even be able to make an educated guess.

That being said, I can't really debate any issues relating to Christians, war, and democracy, because it's very difficult to draw general conclusions about a population that is so hard to identify. But I am interested to know on what basis you draw your conclusions. For example, when you say:

do you mean "Christian civilization" as in a civilization that meets the definition of Christianity that you've provided, or just a civilization that called itself Christian but may well not have been? If the former, how would you make that determination? And if the latter, why would God help a non-Christian society that called itself Christian?

Or when you say,

What are these "Christian countries" you refer to where democracy has been so much more successful? How can you tell if a country is made up of people who meet the definition you've put forward? Is France a Christian country? Is England? Those are two successful democratic countries, but I can't really tell whether or not the bulk of the people there meet your definition of "Christian." What about Angola, Colombia, and Haiti? Are they Christian nations? They certainly haven't beet terribly successful at establishing and maintaining democracy. Certainly we can agree that Classical Athens wasn't a Christian country (existing roughly 500 years before the time of the crucifiction of Jesus, and 800 years before the Council of Nicea adopted its creed), but its democracy was quite successful, as is modern Japan's.

It just seems to me that it's pretty hard to tell the difference between a Christian nation and a non-Christian nation when, using the definition you've supplied, it's hard to tell the difference between someone who merely calls himself a Christian and someone who actually is one.