danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So, are Catholics Christians, or not?

What does it matter to you? You have a completely doctrine-less definition of what is a Christian. If you really care, I'll answer, but I don't believe you do.

Well, that's the issue with "belief" isn't it? I do care, because you are insistent on diverting the question of whether Dear was influenced or motivated by Christian views on abortion to the more constrained one of whether he was a "true" Christian (and presumably your argument is that if he is not, then the Christian aspect is completely untrue, despite anything he may have said or written).

And as a result, I do really want to know who the "true" Christians are. Either Catholics are not Christian or they are (or can be, I guess, on an individual basis). Especially as your definition is strictly on doctrine and it tends to be doctrines that differentiate the various sects of "Christianity".

Not everyone who is a Christian has good doctrinal beliefs. Christianity is that set of beliefs. You cannot be a Christian without a work of God taking place within you--doctrine or no doctrine. You can assent to all the right things and still not be a Christian and you can be a Christian and yet not assent to all the right things.

That said, Catholicism is unique. it claims to be the only means to learn truth about the Bible, yet it distorts the Bible. The more one believes the tenets of Catholicism, the less likely one is to be a Christian. So, I would say there are Catholics who are Christian, but Catholicism is not Christian.

Oh right. So that would explain why many Christians oppose the death penalty. On that basis would you say that supporters of the death penalty, and particularly those who take part in executions are not "true" Christians?

Nope. The death penalty is carried out by government--see Romans 13.

Doctor Fate wrote:Nope. The death penalty is carried out by government--see Romans 13.

That was Paul saying that, not Christ. And that only says to obey the law of government, it does not say that you have to agree with it.

Does it say that when the government is not some "authority" placed from on high but is reflective of the people it represents, that Christians should ask the government to do things that they are told individuals should not do? Does the Bible sanction, or even support such hypocrisy?

Does it say that it's ok to get a job working for the government to perform the killings and still be a Christian (which was the second part of my question above)?

By the way, Catholicism is not "unique" using your definition, surely. I bet we can find other Christian sects which claim to be the truth but distort the Bible, based on your interpretation. Mormons claim to be Christian but appear to have veered some way off. Adventists don't recognise the same Sabbath. The Orthodox reject "sola scriptura". Quakers believe in an ongoing revelation direct to individuals. The Assyrian Church of the East (which is what many Christians in Syria and Iraq follow) is Nestorian.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Nope. The death penalty is carried out by government--see Romans 13.

That was Paul saying that, not Christ.

True, but not true. It is true in the literal sense of who said/wrote the words, but it sets up a false dichotomy--as if it is possible for Jesus to be in conflict with the writing of Paul. It is not. All Scripture is breathed out by God and Jesus and Paul are in harmony.

And that only says to obey the law of government, it does not say that you have to agree with it.

Agreed. Submission is not the same as agreement. However, if you disagree with the law of the land, you have to submit to the governing authorities--even Barack Obama.

Does it say that when the government is not some "authority" placed from on high but is reflective of the people it represents, that Christians should ask the government to do things that they are told individuals should not do? Does the Bible sanction, or even support such hypocrisy?

The government is always an authority established by God, even if it is a government reflective of the will of the people. It is a fool's errand to suppose the government will reflect Christian values for that very reason--in a large democracy most people will not be Christians, whatever their profession of faith may be.

I apologize if that does not address your question, but it was not entirely clear to me what your question is.

Does it say that it's ok to get a job working for the government to perform the killings and still be a Christian (which was the second part of my question above)?

That would be a difficult job for a Christian. I "could" do it, I suppose, but I would have to have certain stipulations: I'd have to be convinced in my own mind the person was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; I would have to have the opportunity to talk to the person at length and plead with them to come to faith in Christ; I would not accept money; and I would not want to do it often. It is quite a burden to take a life, even if it is in the interests of justice.

By the way, Catholicism is not "unique" using your definition, surely. I bet we can find other Christian sects which claim to be the truth but distort the Bible, based on your interpretation. Mormons claim to be Christian but appear to have veered some way off. Adventists don't recognise the same Sabbath. The Orthodox reject "sola scriptura". Quakers believe in an ongoing revelation direct to individuals. The Assyrian Church of the East (which is what many Christians in Syria and Iraq follow) is Nestorian.

Agreed. The question was about Catholicism.

Some sects are so far off (like Mormons) as to not even merit serious consideration about being "Christians." And, that's what I mean by the post-modern application of the term. If anyone who says he is a Christian is granted that title, then the word has lost its meaning.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Nope. The death penalty is carried out by government--see Romans 13.

That was Paul saying that, not Christ.

True, but not true. It is true in the literal sense of who said/wrote the words, but it sets up a false dichotomy--as if it is possible for Jesus to be in conflict with the writing of Paul. It is not. All Scripture is breathed out by God and Jesus and Paul are in harmony.

Apart from the many ways in which they contradict each other. http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/175 ... jesus.html

Does it say that when the government is not some "authority" placed from on high but is reflective of the people it represents, that Christians should ask the government to do things that they are told individuals should not do? Does the Bible sanction, or even support such hypocrisy?

The government is always an authority established by God, even if it is a government reflective of the will of the people. It is a fool's errand to suppose the government will reflect Christian values for that very reason--in a large democracy most people will not be Christians, whatever their profession of faith may be.

I apologize if that does not address your question, but it was not entirely clear to me what your question is.

It is quite simple really. Should Christians support (or vote for) the death penalty? Ignore what the non-Christians vote for or against, that is not what I was asking.

Does it say that it's ok to get a job working for the government to perform the killings and still be a Christian (which was the second part of my question above)?

That would be a difficult job for a Christian. I "could" do it, I suppose, but I would have to have certain stipulations: I'd have to be convinced in my own mind the person was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; I would have to have the opportunity to talk to the person at length and plead with them to come to faith in Christ; I would not accept money; and I would not want to do it often. It is quite a burden to take a life, even if it is in the interests of justice.

"convinced in [your] own mind that the person was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" sounds a lot like "believe" to me.

But basically, as an employed executioner is paid, the cannot be a Christian, in your view.

By the way, Catholicism is not "unique" using your definition, surely. I bet we can find other Christian sects which claim to be the truth but distort the Bible, based on your interpretation. Mormons claim to be Christian but appear to have veered some way off. Adventists don't recognise the same Sabbath. The Orthodox reject "sola scriptura". Quakers believe in an ongoing revelation direct to individuals. The Assyrian Church of the East (which is what many Christians in Syria and Iraq follow) is Nestorian.

Agreed. The question was about Catholicism.

but the answer claimed "uniqueness" which we now see it does not have.

Some sects are so far off (like Mormons) as to not even merit serious consideration about being "Christians." And, that's what I mean by the post-modern application of the term. If anyone who says he is a Christian is granted that title, then the word has lost its meaning.

But if the "true" Christians are a tiny proportion of the full gamut of Christianity as professed, then that also becomes just as meaningless when we look at the wider context.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Nope. The death penalty is carried out by government--see Romans 13.

That was Paul saying that, not Christ.

True, but not true. It is true in the literal sense of who said/wrote the words, but it sets up a false dichotomy--as if it is possible for Jesus to be in conflict with the writing of Paul. It is not. All Scripture is breathed out by God and Jesus and Paul are in harmony.

Apart from the many ways in which they contradict each other. http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/175 ... jesus.html

They don't and I'm not going to argue with you. It's all folly to you in any event. So, when you repent and believe, let me know and we'll talk about it.

It is quite simple really. Should Christians support (or vote for) the death penalty? Ignore what the non-Christians vote for or against, that is not what I was asking.

Okay, that's easy.

I think they can vote their consciences. I do vote for it because I think it is right (presuming proper safeguards--and no, I don't want to argue those again).

Does it say that it's ok to get a job working for the government to perform the killings and still be a Christian (which was the second part of my question above)?

That would be a difficult job for a Christian. I "could" do it, I suppose, but I would have to have certain stipulations: I'd have to be convinced in my own mind the person was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; I would have to have the opportunity to talk to the person at length and plead with them to come to faith in Christ; I would not accept money; and I would not want to do it often. It is quite a burden to take a life, even if it is in the interests of justice.

"convinced in [your] own mind that the person was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" sounds a lot like "believe" to me.

No, I mean I would have to examine the case in detail and be convinced. If I were taking the life on behalf of the State, I would have to be convinced (not some lesser term) of the person's guilt and "worthiness" for such a penalty. Otherwise, they'd have to find someone else.

But basically, as an employed executioner is paid, the cannot be a Christian, in your view.

Given we have States that never do it, it would be a meaningless position in most of them.

but the answer claimed "uniqueness" which we now see it does not have.

Oh, I think it is unique. Its excesses spawned the Reformation. Many "sects" are off a bit here or there, but Rome has turned the Gospel on its head.

Some sects are so far off (like Mormons) as to not even merit serious consideration about being "Christians." And, that's what I mean by the post-modern application of the term. If anyone who says he is a Christian is granted that title, then the word has lost its meaning.

But if the "true" Christians are a tiny proportion of the full gamut of Christianity as professed, then that also becomes just as meaningless when we look at the wider context.

I think it is sometimes meaningless. When someone tries to convince me that 70% or more of the US is "Christian," it is meaningless.

Fate

I think it is sometimes meaningless. When someone tries to convince me that 70% or more of the US is "Christian," it is meaningless

When you present the concept that only a very small segment of people who claim to be Christian are actually Christian, you are denying that the US is a Christian nation. Is that your intent?

.

rickyp wrote:Fate

I think it is sometimes meaningless. When someone tries to convince me that 70% or more of the US is "Christian," it is meaningless

When you present the concept that only a very small segment of people who claim to be Christian are actually Christian, you are denying that the US is a Christian nation. Is that your intent?

.

No, that was not my intent. However, I would absolutely deny it is a "Christian nation." It is a secular nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
--John Adams

This doesn't mean that Adams agrees with you Fate and your sects very narrow definition of a true Christian...

The term did not come into use until the 1950s. It was a made up term that was designed, in part, to increase acceptance of Jews after the shameful way they were treated prior to WWII.
It relies upon the common ethical values that are perceived to exist between Jews and Christians. But of course there are common ethical values between all religions and Islam is also an Abrahamic religion. So the term Judeo-Christian its as exclusive as it intends to be inclusive.
What are American Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists and the unaffiliated to think of their exclusion from society?

I read an article the other day about the debates around the Virginian religious freedom clauses which Jefferson promoted and later the first Amendment. Jews, Catholics and Muslims (and even Gentoos - Hindus) were mentioned as being outside the norm. Jewish values were not really considered by any founders I am aware of.

The basis of the republic is not a religious institution at all, the Roman Republic and Hellene democracies predate Christianity and had nothing to do with Judaism. As DF.has already pointed.out, Christians are supposed ro recognise the prevailing earthly rulers and not rebel.

And until the twentieth century, "judeo-christian" referred to those Jews who gave some recognition to Christ or more latterly to Christians who concentrated on Jewish aspects. It was as rickyp says a lot later that it was used (sometimes retroactively) to refer to a common movement or school of thought.

rickyp wrote:The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
--John Adams

This doesn't mean that Adams agrees with you Fate and your sects very narrow definition of a true Christian...

The term did not come into use until the 1950s. It was a made up term that was designed, in part, to increase acceptance of Jews after the shameful way they were treated prior to WWII.
It relies upon the common ethical values that are perceived to exist between Jews and Christians. But of course there are common ethical values between all religions and Islam is also an Abrahamic religion. So the term Judeo-Christian its as exclusive as it intends to be inclusive.
What are American Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists and the unaffiliated to think of their exclusion from society?

None would have an issue with my statement.

Btw, great argument against something I never said. #wastingbandwidth.

danivon wrote:I read an article the other day about the debates around the Virginian religious freedom clauses which Jefferson promoted and later the first Amendment. Jews, Catholics and Muslims (and even Gentoos - Hindus) were mentioned as being outside the norm. Jewish values were not really considered by any founders I am aware of.

The basis of the republic is not a religious institution at all, the Roman Republic and Hellene democracies predate Christianity and had nothing to do with Judaism. As DF.has already pointed.out, Christians are supposed ro recognise the prevailing earthly rulers and not rebel.

And until the twentieth century, "judeo-christian" referred to those Jews who gave some recognition to Christ or more latterly to Christians who concentrated on Jewish aspects. It was as rickyp says a lot later that it was used (sometimes retroactively) to refer to a common movement or school of thought.

I would only say there is little doubt that our system has founding in British common law and a biblical worldview. It is clear the Founders feared permitting any branch of government having too much power--hence checks and balances, separation of powers, etc. All because of this: man is inherently evil and untrustworthy.

Fate

None would have an issue with my statement.

John Adams certainly would...


The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
--John Adams

rickyp wrote:Fate

None would have an issue with my statement.

John Adams certainly would...


The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
--John Adams

Hey, repeat it. It gets better!

I did not say "founded on the Christian religion." That would be true. However, there are some pretty obvious basic precepts that are based on a Judeo-Christian worldview.

You are free to disagree. After all, you're Canadian.

Gee, and I thought that the founders looked to Montesquieu for their ideas on separation of powers. Montesquieu who was perhaps an atheist. Montesquieu who wrote that "I can assure you that there has never been a kingdom that has had as many evil wars as the Kingdom of Christ." And John Locke was pretty important for the initial Revolutionary War with his social contract and natural rights ideas which provided justification for revolt against the British. I am guessing the founders did not go around quoting Romans 13 much. In fact, Thomas Paine was anti-religion and Thomas Jefferson , John Adams and George Washington were heavily influenced by Deism (which I am pretty sure you would not regard as being a Christian religion).

The idea that our nation was founded on a biblical worldview lacks evidentiary support. Many of the Founders questioned dogma, were skeptical, believed in science, believed in rational inquiry into everything. That is not a biblical worldview because Christians cannot tolerate inquiry or science that leads to answers that go against their beliefs (e.g evolution , textual analysis of the Bible )

freeman3 wrote:Gee, and I thought that the founders looked to Montesquieu for their ideas on separation of powers. Montesquieu who was perhaps an atheist. Montesquieu who wrote that "I can assure you that there has never been a kingdom that has had as many evil wars as the Kingdom of Christ." And John Locke was pretty important for the initial Revolutionary War with his social contract and natural rights ideas which provided justification for revolt against the British. I am guessing the founders did not go around quoting Romans 13 much. In fact, Thomas Paine was anti-religion and Thomas Jefferson , John Adams and George Washington were heavily influenced by Deism (which I am pretty sure you would not regard as being a Christian religion).

The idea that our nation was founded on a biblical worldview lacks evidentiary support. Many of the Founders questioned dogma, were skeptical, believed in science, believed in rational inquiry into everything. That is not a biblical worldview because Christians cannot tolerate inquiry or science that leads to answers that go against their beliefs (e.g evolution , textual analysis of the Bible )

Fine. They all hated the Bible, were atheists, and probably would have nuked Jerusalem if they had the button back then.