copernicus

I dunno, Rad. If Jesus were here, I'm quite sure he'd tell you that infidel-baiting is a sin. It does seem that your purpose here is more to troll for "rad-chasers" than to debate honestly.

You didn't refute my point that you are engaging in a silly "No True Scotsman" argument about what constitutes a christian. First you make broad generalizations about christians that are easily refuted. When people call you on it, you simply change the meaning of "christian" to fit your argument--classic procrustean bait and switch. Such tactics don't really help your "case", you know.

Radorth

Some brothers and I were challenged to define a Christian on another site. All but a couple of Christians signed up to the finished product. Basically it was one who believes the Nicene Creed and has some meaningful testimony of how God has made their life more fruitful. I'm certainly willing to stick to that definition if it will stop this unnecessary and distracting debate about what a Christian is.

It is often the skeptic's definition which is too vague, wraps itself around those who believe almost nothing Jesus said, or have a "private interpretation" of scripture. I challenge anyone to show how my beliefs, other than my belief in pergatory, vary much from any classic Protestant commentary.

Rad

Radorth

Yes I did, but your own cite did it even better, for those who see glaring false analogies anyway.

Rad

copernicus

No you didn't. To do that, you would have to explain how the "No True Scotsman" fallacy fails to apply to your "No True Christian" argument. If you see a "glaring false analogy", then please back up your assertion.

Also, I'm not opposed to "some brothers and [you]" making up a new definition for christian. I have a practical suggestion. Go to any dictionary, look up the word christian, and add your definition to the end of the list. If you disagree with the other word senses, write angry letters of protest to the dictionary publisher. The rest of us will continue to use the word in its more broadly accepted sense until you can get someone with more credibility than you and your buddies to agree.

I also suggest that you open up a new thread in an appropriate forum that is entitled "What does christian mean?" You have hijacked this thread with an issue that has nothing to do with church-state separation.

Toto

The debate about who is a True Christian does belong in another forum. Good luck trying to solve that puzzle.

I note that even in that other forum, Rad and friends could not get unanimity on their definition of a Christian, and for some reason felt the need to augment the Nicene Creed with some indication that their God had done something to their lives - which as far as I know has no Biblical basis. But if you wish to explain it, please open a topic in General Religious Discussions.

How does this relate to church state separation? The impetus for separation was the founders reaction to European governments who tried to enforce their own ideas of "true Christianity." That led them to reject the idea of governments enforcing any religious beliefs.

Radorth

So you can include Adolph Hitler and any other evil person who sat in a pew once or claimed to be a Christian.

That would be the reason you will not use our clarifying definition, I'm sure.

Isn't it a marvel how Christians are grouped together as "you Xians" one day, are said to be too divided the next, are assured Hitler was one of them the next, depending on what the "rational" skeptic wishes to argue?

That's the nice thing about the Secweb. You can have no cogent or consistent theories about anything and still be called "rational."

Rad

copernicus

Radorth, it's difficult to have an honest discussion when you keep pulling us off-topic. If you want to debate this issue, transer it elsewhere, and I'll meet you there.

Toto

I see you also missed the basics of set theory. There is a large group of people who consider themselves Christians. Throughout history, they have divided into sects and gone to war over which of them is the true Christian sect. So there is presumably some reason for classing all these people together as Christians, and yet recognizing the differences between them.

What's so hard about that?

A person who claims that Christian values solve any problem has to be challenged as to which of those subsets of Christianity he is talking about, has to confront the fact that Hitler was raised as a Christian in a Christian culture, and considered himself a true Christian and an instrument of God. (It sounds like his theology was a little wacky, and I would not want to defend the point that he was a real Christian at the end, but Christian values did not save him.)

Buffman

Rad

"Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, "

xxxxx Yup! That CONTINENTAL Congress certainly did all that. Maybe that's what they were doing while George Washington was begging them to send his rag-tag Continental Army some supplies....they were writing religious edicts instead of feeding, clothing and equipping the Army. (Just a speculation: Perhaps these men, who could be put to death if captured, were doing a great deal of praying themselves because the British were just on the outskirts of Philadelphia as Washington's Army retreated through the city. Not exactly a confidence builder in the security of their lives and fortunes. Many true believers turn to their supernatural gods to save them in such circumstances. The people who survive credit their prayers. Those who die don't get any say. It doesn't take all that much courage to sit in a building writing religious edicts for others to follow. Courage comes in standing face-to-face with a professional, well equipped and led army bent on killing you when you don't have the adequate means to defend yourself or the coward streak to run away.)

My mistake. But not a peep from any Founder except Madison apparently.

xxxxx What on earth are you referencing about Mr. Madison?

Certainly not from Jefferson. I would have said something, so I guess that makes me a strict separationist compared to him.

xxxxx Here is what Mr. Jefferson was doing and saying during that period.

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/J...biography.html

Gosh and what kind of "divine services" do we suppose Jefferson was "recommending." Not Protestant Christian ones I hope.

xxxxx (Please provide a reference.)

Well I think Toto's cite pretty well sums up the Founder's/ Congress' view of "separation." He knows there's a problem and doubtless hopes some legalistic interpretation of the First Amendment makes it all go away in the minds of the choir.

xxxxx What are you attempting to claim now? That the Library of Congress Exhibit is an accurate presentation of Religion and the Founding of the American Republic?

If we are talking about the value of separation here, I don't think we are far off. If we are talking about what the Framer's own beliefs on what separation entailed, then our differences are irreconcilable by now.

This is an interesting remark. If you don't think that your views and our views about the "value" of church(religion) and state(government) separation are very far off...and you are a devout Christian...then why do you think that the Framer's own beliefs on what separation entailed were (would be) so different from ours? Remember, the Framers of the Constitution were sitting in session in Philadelphia when the members of the 13th Continential Congress were in session in New York, N.Y. passing the NW Ordinance on July 13, 1787. The situation was much different in 1787 than it was in 1776.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nworder.htm

(Extract)
Sec. 14. It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:
Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.
End extract)

One more time I will attempt to make my position clear to you. I don't care what religious faith any of the Founding or Framing Fathers professed...other than to correct false statements about those beliefs by either theists or non-theists. What I do care about is the effort by some dogmatic American Christians to claim that the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights was created from the Judeo-Christian Bible simply because the men who crafted it were primarily Christians, thus making America a "Christian Nation." (I am completely in accord with the fact that they were all religious in some manner or another.)

Our Constitution is a unique document creating a secular federal republic form of government. It is at those inerrant and dogmatic Christians that I launch my efforts of accurate history reporting. That I do so within this particular Sec Web is irrelevant. So whenever you attempt to defend those types of Christians by citing some of their inaccurate or unconfirmed quotes, I can only question why you are motivated to do so when you claim that you do not support the majority of their positions/claims. Is that clear?

Daggah

Straw man, non-sequitur, red herring. All in so small a post.

YOU said that Luther was basically an enemy to oppression.

The quotes showing his bigotry against the jews proves that he isn't.

This is typical Radorth behavior. When his assertions are proven wrong, he acts as if he claimed something totally different.