Celsus

Radorth,

Following up on this thread , you made plenty of unsubstantiated assertions. In fact, you denied you ever read the Atheist's Testimony thread either, so one can only question why you wish to smear the posters here, who have honestly shared their thoughts and experiences.

The problem, is when Christians are in full evangelical mode, they like to tell people that all that is required for salvation is accepting Jesus into one's heart. That's the cake. Then along comes an apostate, and the whole ball game changes. Suddenly, there are all sorts of rules on what really is a True Christian. Questioning people's honesty, motives, desires, inner thoughts, and on and on. So now the Christians want to eat that cake.

So what defines a Christian? A simple sinner's prayer and humble acceptance? Works? Or all the legalistic nonsense that even you claim is bad?

I guarantee you that many people will fit into whichever category you choose to define. At least some will qualify as having once been True Christians (tm). But there is a cop-out: i.e. True Christians are those who are sufficiently brain-washed that they never ever think about the inconsistencies and problems with the Bible and their logically incoherent God.
There you go. What is a True Christian (tm)?

Joel

Radorth

I suspect this another Rad-baiting Infidels Inquisition thread, full of inane, insincere, pedantic and rhetorical questions, and bad for the SecWeb. We'll see.

Name 2, and please quote me correctly. I doubt you can remember one thing I said without looking it up.

I didn't smear anyone, while I was called names, preached at, summarily judged, misquoted, and accused of being a bad Christian, my fellow holy hypocrite. I've read plenty of atheist "testimonies." I asserted that the majority of them effectively say "I did everything right, and God screwed up. Therefore there is no God."

I also asserted that one who was saved in truth canot just decide they are not, which clearly implies that God is faithful and forgiving. How is that "smearing" anyone?

It is customary in civilized society to give examples when slandering people. In court you must prove it is true or lose the case. Point out where I question people's motives until the very last part of the other thread. That was after BG told us she was bailing out because God failed to speak to her in an audible voice.

I've already said that we cannot know for sure, because we can't know a person's heart, though you obviously claim to. A Christian? One who believes the Nicene creed and has a testimony about the grace of God.

Why this question? Or do you wish to argue things we agree on, just for the sake of arguing?

But I will assert that most Christians turned atheist have heard too much legalist ic teaching. What do you think this statement means?

"...the strength of sin is the Law."

As far as "works" goes, legalists have one scripture in James to point to, and they obviously ignore the fact that James was speaking to people who claimed to have faith but had none. It is impossible to have a new nature without ever having any congruent works. I don't bother listing mine, with one exception where somebody asked me how many kids I had adopted. God well knows my works, and I simply get accused of vouching if I list the good ones. I have made plenty of mistakes anyway.

Rad

Radorth

Heh. One can only imagine what polemic would have poured out of some mouths if God HAD spoken to BG.

I suspect there would have been a surprising loss of "understanding."

Rad

GunnerJ

Feeding the trolls is bad enough.

But BAITING the trolls?

Imagine a fisherman finding a ham sandwidch attached to a line on the docks, trailing back into the water...

We've got it all in reverse.

Edit: Didn't realise this was some sort of diversion tactic. Will take care of Rad's statements on the other thread in SL&S, if someone else hasn't already.

livius drusus

Rimstalker -

Celsus is performing a public service here, imo. Radorth's been cocking up blondegoddess' thread for pages now and Joel is just taking it outside where it belongs.

Bree

blondegoddess' thread is now in SL&S. Thank you, Joel, for starting this new thread.

seebs

I think "true Christian" and "false Christian" are names which imply knowledge that I don't believe any living person has. It strikes me that Fred Phelps seems to be a hateful, vile, person, who is almost certainly going against everything Christianity has ever stood for. However, I cannot simply say "he's not a real Christian". How should *I* know? Maybe he's a devout man, doing his honest best, and his honest best just isn't very good by my personal standards.

So, my personal idea is, anyone who claims to be Christian is probably a "true Christian", and if maybe some of them aren't, it's not mine to judge.

I believe that true Christians can do horrible things; I don't think they should, but I think it's a good thing. Not that it's good that they do horrible things; it's good that they can be saved anyway, because that grace is what I'm relying on, too. If I have never actually caused someone to die, it's not for lack of ill-will, but for self-control, awareness of consequences, or lack of courage. Who am I, who have wished people dead, to condemn a murderer?

Celsus

Hi Radorth,

(...with apologies to Rimstalker, since I repeatedly asked Rad to make his baseless assertions somewhere else)
Hmmm... Let's see questioning motives: check. Insinuating dishonesty: check. Persecution complex: check. Oops. I asked you plenty of times to stop derailing the thread, as I imagined the signal-to-noise ratio was deafening. So what's wrong with a new thread?
Sorry, but you are joking right? This is the internet. You'll never prove one way or another what I did, but I guess you'll have to stick with your conspiracy theory. But since you asked me to name 2, here you go: Your first post in that thread, for (1):
Obviously unsubstantiated, until pressed on this thread. And now you claimed "we can't know a person's heart", yet in the same breath declaring that all the ex-Christians were never truly Christians. Finally of course, there's the insinuation that BG isn't a true Christian. Hence the comments others made on heaping guilt. Cake. Bite?

And as for a second (of many) unsubstantiated assertions, directed at me:
Two assertions for the price of one! Obviously, what I posted was the only external evidence available to all. How many people have been published in a Christian newsletter? Then your second assertion, that it was "typical". In both cases, where is your evidence? More assertions don't count, just in case you're wondering.You set yourself lofty God-like goals as your behaviour. Try to get the bit about love thy neighbour correct first, and then it all falls nicely into place. Your assaults and insinuations on blondegoddess' integrity, from the very first moment you posted, are quite clear for all to see. Need I remind you of:
You're reaping what you're sowing here Radorth. As Tobit (long before Jesus) says, that which you hate, don't do to others. (4:15). Ok Page 4: "Who lets you "fool" yourself as long as you don't really know him as he is, because you really give him no other choice. "

Ummm... No comment.

Same post: "People who are sincere and truly open-hearted will be saved"

There's that True Scotsman fallacy rearing it's head again. Oh wait. You don't believe it's a fallacy. So that means you are implying all of us here are close-minded.
After blondegoddess opened up and shared her struggle, after Malcolm posted his own experience and some useful advice: "By all means encourage her, but don't try to tell her, or me, that we were never saved. That is extreme arrogance. ", you had these nice encouraging words for Malcolm:

Page 5: "...you never understoood the Gospel at all, nor did you understand anything I said."

and paraphrasing dishonestly:

"Meanwhile you patronizingly say 'I was just like you and you're blind.' "
...which if you reread Malcolm's post, says nothing of the sort, but enables you to play the victim card for the rest of the thread. Perhaps you're hoping that people here don't check up on facts?

Page 6: " And I still see nothing to show you ever had a personal relationship with him. Now you are talking about all your good works. Joel, if it ever occurs to you he was more interested in an intimate relationship with you than all your good works, you will be born again IN FACT. "

Shall we then go on to your ridiculous assertions about my Christian life? Do I need to show you 3 diaries full of prayers and conversations I had with God? Again, assuming too much, and secondly insulting my integrity. Of course, you've misquoted Malcolm, so now you can play the victim card!

Anyway... There's plenty more where that came from, but let's not dwell too much on it. Here's the irony of the whole discussion:
After peddling your certainty about whether I was or was not a true Christian, you finally admit you don't know what's in a person's heart. Well here's a clue: I know my own heart better than you do. And as for the Nicene Creed, and a testimony of grace: check. So I was a true Christian by those requirements. Was.
Now for the works bit. I asked that question because you were playing fast and loose with what a True Christian was supposed to be. So it was merely to clarify. As for your assertion that most Christians turned atheists did so because of legalistic teaching, well, what's that got to do with whether one is or was or isn't or wasn't a true Christian? I'm asking whether the legalistic framework is useful in defining True Christians. Simple question. A "no" would have sufficed.

Joel

Celsus

I rest my case. (Want some more rope?)

Joel

hezekiah jones

Good luck Joel, and nice job so far. But I suggest you don your moisture-proof booties once the Jell-O starts piling up at the foot of the wall below the nail.