Radorth

Oh that's right. In the technical, legalistic sense, you never actually saw Hitler witness.

I think you know exactly what I meant Fenton.

Nice try though.

Rad

Yellum Notnef

Sorry,but your leg is still stuck in the weasel trap.
I thought your position was that Hitler was not a Christian. Anyhoo....

You are now suggesting that not only was Hitler a Christian,but he was also a witness because he publicly affirmed his religious faith.

From dictionary.com
Witness
One who publicly affirms religious faith.

So lets say Hitler was indeed a Christian and by definition he did indeed witness when he taked about god. He was also an evil man who killed thousands of people,but did he act like a jerk WHILE he was witnessing? No.
Was his horrible plan being carried out elsewhere in the world as he was somewhere else talking about god? Sure,but while in the act of witnessing he wasn`t making fun of the very people he was witnessing to.

You,on the other hand,act like a jerk WHILE you are witnessing. Therefore,you are still the worst witness I`ve ever seen.

Theres a difference between acting like what you think a Christian should act like and discussing your religion and religious beliefs with people. I`m quite sure that Hitler did not act as you think a Christian should,but thats not the issue here. The issue was if he acted like a jerk while in the process of witnessing.

FWIW,I`m not quite sure if it`s even correct to say that Hitler witnessed in the way we think of Christian witnessing today. He did talk about god,but was he actually testifying? Was he trying to convince people of Jesus with personal stories about miracles and speaking in tongues? Not that I`m aware of.

I suppose now you`ll tell me that definition is wrong and that a Christian,just by being a Christian,is constantly witnessing with not only their words,but also their actions. So Hitler is a worse witness than you just because Hitlers actions were much worse than anything you`ve ever done.

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, you WOULD be a theist. So would I, when confronted by Kali.

Still waiting...

Luiseach

Sorry to interrupt the flow of the debate with this question. It's about words (which is my interest), so I'll just ask my question and go back to the philosophy forum again:


I was thinking about the relationship between the notion of 'sin' and the broader idea of 'moral violations.'

Would you agree that to view sin as only part of religious discourse, as an offence against God, is to limit its meaning artificially?

Further to this, would you think that 'moral violations' is more inclusive than the term 'sin'?

You mentioned earlier that it's merely a perception to view 'sin' as just a religious idea, and that it could encompass moral offences that don't necessarily offend God.

Am I interpreting your argument correctly? If not, would you please explain further for clarification.

Thanks!


P.S. Again, sorry for the interruption to the debate.
<---------blushes for jumping in with a question about semantics.

Radorth

I agree it has some religious connotations, which is why I said you can read "moral violations" and still get the point. I don't really care about the semantics much.

Rad

Radorth

OK, I get it now. He could give orders to take all Jewish property and put them in a Ghetto, and then witness to you, and you might be impressed.

Well I must admit. I never thought of that. But then I've never much liked picking nits. I only do it when backed up against the wall by a nitpicker.

Heh.

Rad

Radorth

So anyway Fenton, how am I a worse witness than Paul? You seem to be avoiding the question.

Rad

MrDarwin

I really have no idea if Hitler was a better, worse, or indifferent witness for Christianity. Was Hitler a Christian in the first place? As far as I know I've never made a claim one way or the other. So you tell me, Radorth, but also tell me how you know. We generally take Christians on their own word that they are. Otherwise how are we infidels supposed to know who is a Christian, and who isn't, when not even self-proclaimed Christians seem to agree on the definition? It seems easiest to just take people on their word.

And after Hitler, how about Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? Christian Scientists? Catholics? Is there some master list we can check everybody's name against? If Hitler (or anybody else for that matter) thinks he is a Christian, is he or isn't he? If a person can claim to be, and even think, he is a Christian, but isn't, then how do we know that you are?

Yellum Notnef

I wouldn`t be impressed at all. I`m not impressed by anything to do with religion regardless of how serious the person doing the talking is.

You`re the one who picked Hitler to compare yourself to. Out of the all the people living or dead who might be considered a worse witness,you immediately go all the way to the end of the line and pick perhaps the most evil person in the history of humanity? Lol!

There have been people on this very board (who I have seen with my own eyes) who might have been able to steal your title or at least give you a good challenge for it. But you picked Hitler.

Radorth

And that is the ONLY thing you take them at their word on, no matter how bad their behavior is. That way you don't have to think very hard, and you can use the bad ones as examples for simplistic arguments. It happens daily here.