danivon

Regardless of your attempts at psychoanalysis and mindreading, Dear expressed strongly his beliefs. He may well be deluded, but that hardly disqualifies him from religion - after all, would you not agree that all those who follow other gods are suffering from delusion?

Its always interesting that the focus on someone like Dear is his mental health.
However the focus on someone who straps on a suicide vest and blows up a cafe in Paris is their religion.
Strapping on a suicide vest is the act of someone who is clearly mentally unstable.
Leaving your six month old child behind to shoot up a work party, is also not the act of a stable mind.

People agree that its a good idea to keep mentally ill people away from guns. Now how does that get accomplished? (Because I'll bet the system that does this will stop mentally ill Muslims as much as anyone.)

rickyp wrote:danivon

Regardless of your attempts at psychoanalysis and mindreading, Dear expressed strongly his beliefs. He may well be deluded, but that hardly disqualifies him from religion - after all, would you not agree that all those who follow other gods are suffering from delusion?

Its always interesting that the focus on someone like Dear is his mental health.
However the focus on someone who straps on a suicide vest and blows up a cafe in Paris is their religion.
Strapping on a suicide vest is the act of someone who is clearly mentally unstable.
Leaving your six month old child behind to shoot up a work party, is also not the act of a stable mind.

People agree that its a good idea to keep mentally ill people away from guns. Now how does that get accomplished? (Because I'll bet the system that does this will stop mentally ill Muslims as much as anyone.)

Interesting how you compare a group of people with one individual. Also, we know both San Bernardino and Paris jihad groups were preparing for months. Any indication Dear planned this for months? That others financially supported him?

That baby was conceived after both jihadists had already planned martyrdom.

Say what you will, the Qur'an compels some Muslims to murder. There is nothing in the words of Jesus that would justify what Dear did. In fact, Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world and He forbade His followers from taking up arms in His defense.

But, again, you're the religious expert. Go ahead. Please show where Jesus said to kill those who have abortions or perform them.

fate

Say what you will, the Qur'an compels some Muslims to murder.

And yet only a small sub set of 1.6 billion Muslims follow those sayings literally.
Or the prescriptions in the Hadith concerning Apostay.

Fate

here is nothing in the words of Jesus that would justify what Dear did. In fact, Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world and He forbade His followers from taking up arms in His defense

I agree with you.
But the groups Christian Identiy, Chritian Patriot, Lambs of Christ, The Hutarees, The Montana Freemen, and the CSA all seem to think that God wanted them to carry out violent attacks and that such attacks will hasten the ascendancy of the Aryan race.

So it seems that religion and scripture can be used violently by some, whether it is Islamic or Christian. (Or even Bhuddist)

rickyp wrote:fate

Say what you will, the Qur'an compels some Muslims to murder.

And yet only a small sub set (sic) of 1.6 billion Muslims follow those sayings literally.
Or the prescriptions in the Hadith concerning Apostay (sic).

On the other hand, if all the other Muslims hated what this small subset does, they could end it by providing intel.

Fate

here is nothing in the words of Jesus that would justify what Dear did. In fact, Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world and He forbade His followers from taking up arms in His defense

I agree with you.

Just end there.

But the groups Christian Identiy (sic), Chritian (sic) Patriot, Lambs of Christ, The Hutarees, The Montana Freemen, and the CSA all seem to think that God wanted them to carry out violent attacks and that such attacks will hasten the ascendancy of the Aryan race.

Which again, has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.

So it seems that religion and scripture can be used violently by some, whether it is Islamic or Christian. (Or even Bhuddist) (sic)

No doubt. The questions are whether the groups you identify have global reach and/or any claim whatsoever on the New Testament, which would seem to be a key of being "Christian."

let me make the following points:

Christian churches have been active opponents of abortions. They are the primary source of anti-abortion views in our culture and provide strong justification (in the sense of saying God is against abortion). What other major source is there? So nit-picking as to whether someone is really a Christian is not really relevant. What is the ultimate source of Robert Dear's views on abortion? Almost certainly it came from Christian sources. Where else would it come from, really? As to the idea that Robert Dear is not really a Christian because of his bad actions I took a look at a survey of federal prisons and prisoners appear to be pretty religious (there are no atheists in a foxhole or in prison-- only .07% of those in federal prison--as compared to 1.6% in the general population--identify as being atheist, a number 22 times lower than identifying as atheist in the general population... but I digress)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... -imagined/

Are we going to say that all ( or most) of these people in prison are not really Christian as many of them have done some really bad things? And of course the African-American community is particularly religious and they are over-represented in the prison population.

Going to church, getting baptized , and reading the Bible does not insulate a person from doing bad things (it might help ). And the fact that Robert did bad things does not mean he was not influenced by Christian teachings on abortion. That is the important thing, not whether he meets the according to Hoyle definition of what it means to be a Christian.

The key point, however, is that no major Christian group is teaching that it is ok to use violence against abortion clinics. The fact that Dear or some small Christian splinter group might go further is troubling (and as I said before mainstream Christians might want to be a bit more cautious in their rhetoric) but it is the not same thing that is occurring with Islam.

While it may convincingly argued that the teachings of Jesus are honored more in the breech than the observance, they cannot be used as justification for war or violence. The same cannot be said of the Quran whose verses can be plausibly cited for the use of violence against non- believers and for justification against war against the West. A moderate Muslim can say terrorist attacks don't represent real Islam and that is undoubtedly true for them. But radical Muslims can look to the text for justification. Without that ability to look at the Quran for justification there would not be radical Islam as we know it , which is far more powerful than Robert Dear and the Army of Doom. You cannot equate the two. "If you have a gun you can shoot one, two, three, five people ; but if you have an ideology that you believe is the absolute truth, you can kill millions"-Thich Nhat Hanh.

ISIS has an ideology and they have a venerated source to turn to in order to appeal to disaffected Muslims in the West. There is no similar ability of Christian terrorist groups to appeal to mainstream Christians.

I just saw Ricky's post-- yes it is true that Christians could cite to the Old Testament for justification for violence, but there is a limit to their appeal because they do not come from the charismatic figure of Jesus.

fate

On the other hand, if all the other Muslims hated what this small subset does, they could end it by providing intel

For the dozens of mass shooters (young white men) in the US.... there was no one who would, or probably could inform upon them either.All their acquaintances, friends and family clam to be totally shocked and surprised that Dylan, or Eric or Robert were going to do something horrible... Or that they never thought they were capable.
Does this make them culpable or complicit? The whole white race or the whole of those of Christian faith culpable or complicit?
No.
So why should it be the same for the unknowing family and friends of the San Bernadino shooters or the Boston Bombers?

Fate

The questions are whether the groups you identify have global reach

Does that matter to the victims in Colorado or the victims of Eric Rudoplh? Who possesses truly radical ideas about Christianity.

http://www.armyofgod.com/EricRudolphHomepage.html

Fate

/or any claim whatsoever on the New Testament, which would seem to be a key of being "Christian.

"
To you.
But not necessarily others who represent themselves as Christian.
And many Christians think the NT can't be understood without also studying the OT and applying it as well. And for them there was no real authority to rule on their interpretation of the OT passages. (No Church with sole authority)
Some apply the OT literally....
Particularly with groups in the US.
I well remember how Leviticus was regularly run out to demonize homosexuals... The OT came in handy for many Christians then.

And often it does for radicalized extremists and delusional types who are committing many of the school, abortion clinic, theater shootings the US endures.

Freeman

Without that ability to look at the Quran for justification there would not be radical Islam as we know it , which is far more powerful than Robert Dear and the Army of Doom. You cannot equate the two. "If you have a gun you can shoot one, two, three, five people ; but if you have an ideology that you believe is the absolute truth, you can kill millions"-Thich Nhat Hanh.
ISIS has an ideology and they have a venerated source to turn to in order to appeal to disaffected Muslims in the West. There is no similar ability of Christian terrorist groups to appeal to mainstream Christians.

Conservative Christians in the US have an ideology too freeman. They used the OT to demonize homosexuals for decades.
They regularly apply their scriptures,both OT and occasionally NT to make their case for the elimination of abortion. And other
Some become radicalized and resort to violence. And the resort to the same scriptures to justify this. (see link to Eric Rudolphs hoime page)

I grant you that the literal adherence to Islamic scripture is being used by more of the Islamic faith now. And in an organized fashion by ISIS.
But much of that has to do with the socio economic conditions in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan. With either despots stealing most of societies goods, or very weak governments that can't seem to govern to benefit many people, the populace (especially the young and hopeless) are attracted to notions that ISIS and fundamentalists use their interpretation of Islam to offer an alternative that has appeal. The culture of victim hood and eventual retribution against the Great Satan...
Its always good to have a demonized opposition to blame all your troubles on. Religions depend on it. (So does Donald Trump. )
And some individuals hearing the message over the Internet become radicalized and act out. For them maybe it could have been anything else that appealed to their sense of alienation and of having their sense of entitlement played to...

The larger point I've been making isn't to defend Islamic fundamentalist who are radicalizing some young people in Europe and North America. Its to point out that in the US, they aren't as much of a threat as "mass shooters" or lone wolf terrorists" as already existed before Al Queda and ISIS came along. Young white men with supposedly middle class Christian upbringing.
Who have access to guns.
You solve the problem of those young men radicalized men getting guns, and you solve the Islamic radicals too.
But if the focus is only on demonizing Muslims, then nothing will get accomplished but fueling the resentment among Muslims around the world . And certainly nothing will get accomplished on reining in gun violence in the US....

freeman3 wrote:let me make the following points:

Christian churches have been active opponents of abortions. They are the primary source of anti-abortion views in our culture and provide strong justification (in the sense of saying God is against abortion). What other major source is there? So nit-picking as to whether someone is really a Christian is not really relevant. What is the ultimate source of Robert Dear's views on abortion? Almost certainly it came from Christian sources. Where else would it come from, really? As to the idea that Robert Dear is not really a Christian because of his bad actions I took a look at a survey of federal prisons and prisoners appear to be pretty religious (there are no atheists in a foxhole or in prison-- only .07% of those in federal prison--as compared to 1.6% in the general population--identify as being atheist, a number 22 times lower than identifying as atheist in the general population... but I digress)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... -imagined/

Are we going to say that all ( or most) of these people in prison are not really Christian as many of them have done some really bad things? And of course the African-American community is particularly religious and they are over-represented in the prison population.

So, if bad people claim to be Christians and Dear is a bad person, then why can't he claim Christianity?

I think there's an error of logic there.

Religiosity is not a mark of Christianity. If it were, Jesus would not have told Nicodemus, THE teacher of all Israel, that he needed to be born again. No one was more religious than Nicodemus.

Funny thing about folks in jail: many are remarkably devoted to reading and discussing the Bible. The trick is when they get out to the "real world" and have to deal with the availability of drugs, alcohol, and women--in other words the things that get them in jail in the first place.

Going to church, getting baptized , and reading the Bible does not insulate a person from doing bad things (it might help ). And the fact that Robert did bad things does not mean he was not influenced by Christian teachings on abortion. That is the important thing, not whether he meets the according to Hoyle definition of what it means to be a Christian.

And . . . going to church, getting baptized, and reading the Bible does not make a person a Christian. I would note that we have no particular evidence (yet) that Mr. Dear did any of those things.

Now, was he influenced by Christian teachings . . . maybe. I don't really know what that means. He's insane. He might have been influenced by a lot of things. Who knows what the last thing he heard before he decided to go over the edge was. Was he listening to some nut on the Internet? Did someone say something to him? Did he speak to Carly Fiorina? I don't know. Do you?

The key point, however, is that no major Christian group is teaching that it is ok to use violence against abortion clinics. The fact that Dear or some small Christian splinter group might go further is troubling (and as I said before mainstream Christians might want to be a bit more cautious in their rhetoric) but it is the not same thing that is occurring with Islam.

One of the key features of biblical Christianity is there is no sin anyone currently on Earth can commit that cannot be forgiven IF that person genuinely believes in Christ. God judges the heart. I cannot say for certain Dear is not a Christian. That is above my pay-grade. What I can say is that by ALL appearances he is not a Christian. Nothing in his past or present would give me even remote hope that he is "in Christ."

It now appears he was motivated by abortion. That said, I don't know how much more anyone can say for sure. I think it's just as likely little green men told him abortion had to be stopped in order for their colonization to save the planet as anything. He is bonkers.

While it may convincingly argued that the teachings of Jesus are honored more in the breech than the observance, they cannot be used as justification for war or violence. The same cannot be said of the Quran whose verses can be plausibly cited for the use of violence against non- believers and for justification against war against the West. A moderate Muslim can say terrorist attacks don't represent real Islam and that is undoubtedly true for them. But radical Muslims can look to the text for justification. Without that ability to look at the Quran for justification there would not be radical Islam as we know it , which is far more powerful than Robert Dear and the Army of Doom. You cannot equate the two. "If you have a gun you can shoot one, two, three, five people ; but if you have an ideology that you believe is the absolute truth, you can kill millions"-Thich Nhat Hanh.

This is my concern.

I hate Trump's candidacy and most things he has said. However, the idea of slowing (or even stopping) immigration from Muslim countries (at least those with the presence of AQ, ISIS, etc.) for a time may be necessary. Why? Because we have no plausible way of stopping terrorists from using it. That's evident in this San Bernardino attack. The wife came to the US with the purpose of committing jihad. But, I digress. I'll just agree. Nutcases and the splinter cells of oddball groups are less of an overall threat than militant Islam.

ISIS has an ideology and they have a venerated source to turn to in order to appeal to disaffected Muslims in the West. There is no similar ability of Christian terrorist groups to appeal to mainstream Christians.

Cheers, mate. Well said.

rickyp wrote:fate

On the other hand, if all the other Muslims hated what this small subset does, they could end it by providing intel

For the dozens of mass shooters (young white men) in the US.... there was no one who would, or probably could inform upon them either.

Not true. There have been plenty of school plots that have been foiled. Of those that have succeeded, I think you will find, almost without exception, that the parents were derelict.

So why should it be the same for the unknowing family and friends of the San Bernadino shooters or the Boston Bombers?

We know "unknowing" doesn't apply to some people with regard to San Bernardino. The grandmother had an award from a terror-sponsor organization. The rifles were purchased by a friend who was converting to Islam and knew of the goal of an attack.

In Boston, one of the brothers had been thrown out of the mosque for his virulent views.

These things don't happen in a vacuum. If you look at the Newtown shooting, the Mom was, I'm sorry, an idiot. Columbine . . . the parents were in massive denial and on it goes.

Fate

The questions are whether the groups you identify have global reach

Does that matter to the victims in Colorado or the victims of Eric Rudoplh? Who possesses truly radical ideas about Christianity.

Actually, it does matter. Are they likely to pop up anywhere and everywhere? Paris? Australia? Africa?

Fate

/or any claim whatsoever on the New Testament, which would seem to be a key of being "Christian.

"
To you.
But not necessarily others who represent themselves as Christian.
And many Christians think the NT can't be understood without also studying the OT and applying it as well. And for them there was no real authority to rule on their interpretation of the OT passages. (No Church with sole authority)

Right, religion expert. I forgot . . . where did you go to get your divinity degree?

Christians follow Christ. He said His kingdom was not of this world. If someone wants to contradict Jesus, they are welcome to do it, but that would seem to be decidedly un-Christian.

And often it does for radicalized extremists and delusional types who are committing many of the school, abortion clinic, theater shootings the US endures.

Nonsense--you've not established these things.

I believe, seriously, they read your writing and are radicalized by it.

rickyp wrote:I grant you that the literal adherence to Islamic scripture is being used by more of the Islamic faith now. And in an organized fashion by ISIS.

Wow. That is mighty decent of you to "grant" that. What a guy!

But much of that has to do with the socio economic conditions in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Yeah. Please explain why the rich and middle class participate in it--see San Bernardino.

My guess is if they would just go to socialized medicine, all the societal ills would be resolved.

You solve the problem of those young men radicalized men getting guns, and you solve the Islamic radicals too.

Bull.

Newtown . . . nutcase.

Charleston . . . nutcase.

Colorado . . . nutcase.

You're making junk up as fast as your fingers can move.

But if the focus is only on demonizing Muslims, then nothing will get accomplished but fueling the resentment among Muslims around the world . And certainly nothing will get accomplished on reining in gun violence in the US....

Oh brother.

Stay in Canada! Nothing ever happens there! If you cross the border, you're a goner.

Doctor Fate wrote:Let's see, I could walk through 1 John, which lays out several "tests" for believers. I could point you to the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says that many identify as His followers but are not. I could point you to passages wherein the Gospel is proclaimed and then ask when Mr. Dear ever proclaims it (I'm sure he doesn't know it). I could point to all of his sordid behavior, his lack of belonging to a church, etc.

You can do what you like. A lot of the "tests" are subjective on behalf of the other person, and you don't know what Dear thinks or has done other than what has been reported. And I am not sure that you have to "belong" to a church to be a Christian. After all, Matthew 18:20 applies ("For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."). The verses after that are quite apposite for how to deal with a repeated sinner as well.

None of that will convince you. Why? Because to the post-modern mind a person is what he says he is, without regard to what he does or even what he is biologically.

I had no idea that Christianity was biological.

What he does? He's been reported as having been aggressive in his profession of Christian belief.

The man could pray to Buddha five times a day while facing the Scientology headquarters in Hollywood, but if he says he's a Christian you will still accept his claim.

Well, no. Please supply any evidence that he has worshipped according to any other religion, or even recognised them as anything other than being wrong.

Why not? You probably believe Bruce Jenner is a woman.

Irrelevant. I believe he is biologically male in sex but identifies as female by gender. I am not convinced that his trans identity is wholly genuine or particularly well handled, but frankly I don't see what that has to do with a guy who shouts about how we should accept Jesus on the internet and whether he may perhaps be a bit Christian.

Regardless of your attempts at psychoanalysis and mindreading, Dear expressed strongly his beliefs.

Yes, through his many marriages, through his gambling, and through his paranoid rambling. [/quote]Many Christians have had multiple marriages. Gambling is not explicitly banned in the Bible (just "the love of money" which would also rule out capitalism). And paranoid rambling? Well, I've seen plenty of that from Christians with a martyrdom complex.

Not that any of those are how he expressed his beliefs, they are what he did despite his beliefs - or alongside them. He seems to believe he was already saved and so beyond sin.

He may well be deluded, but that hardly disqualifies him from religion - after all, would you not agree that all those who follow other gods are suffering from delusion?

Not a mental delusion for which they are not accountable, no. [/quote]Unless he is now playing up the mental side in order to get a an insanity plea.

And perhaps even whole Christian sects like the Catholics with their veneration of the Pope, idolatry of Saints especially Mary?

Irrelevant. He does not attend Catholic church or any church.

I am not talking about Dear here. I am talking about how some Christians claim that Catholics are not Christian (and even that Rome is the Antichrist). You have seen that, right?

No church of any substance would permit his behavior without exercising Matt 18. I'm sure you, being the expert on all things religious, are familiar with those words of Jesus. You know, the "Christ" in "Christianity?" He said someone like Dear should be treated "like an unbeliever."

"like" an unbeliever is not the same as "as" an unbeliever. And you mention Matt 18. Verses 21-35 say to forgive as many times as it takes:

Matthew wrote:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

The issue is not whether Dear is a "true" Christian, but whether he was inspired or motivated by Christianity.

Maybe that's the issue for you. It's not for me. See what I did there?

Yep, you are focusing on whether he was a "true" Christian. Just as those ISIS members who take drugs are by actions not "true" Muslims. I don't give a monkeys - The main source of his anti-abortion fervour appears to be coming from his (warped?) Christian beliefs and the examples of other Christian anti-abortionists who have killed.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Let's see, I could walk through 1 John, which lays out several "tests" for believers. I could point you to the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says that many identify as His followers but are not. I could point you to passages wherein the Gospel is proclaimed and then ask when Mr. Dear ever proclaims it (I'm sure he doesn't know it). I could point to all of his sordid behavior, his lack of belonging to a church, etc.

You can do what you like. A lot of the "tests" are subjective on behalf of the other person, and you don't know what Dear thinks or has done other than what has been reported. And I am not sure that you have to "belong" to a church to be a Christian. After all, Matthew 18:20 applies ("For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."). The verses after that are quite apposite for how to deal with a repeated sinner as well.

Thank you for demonstrating my point: unbelievers messing with the Bible demonstrate they are unbelievers messing with the Bible.

In context, Matt 18:20 is not a simple matter of "two or three" believers gathering in His name. It is part of a process we call "church discipline."

(Matt. 18:15-20) If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

Context, context, context.

Then again, many Christians misapply that verse too.

None of that will convince you. Why? Because to the post-modern mind a person is what he says he is, without regard to what he does or even what he is biologically.

I had no idea that Christianity was biological.

I had to hold my sides to stop them from splitting.

What he does? He's been reported as having been aggressive in his profession of Christian belief.

And advertise for sex . . . that's a little . . . um . . . extra-biblical. Wife-beating? It might be a sport in Islam, but we take a dim view of it.

(Eph. 5:25) Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

The man could pray to Buddha five times a day while facing the Scientology headquarters in Hollywood, but if he says he's a Christian you will still accept his claim.

Well, no. Please supply any evidence that he has worshipped according to any other religion, or even recognised them as anything other than being wrong.

Please provide evidence that he WORSHIPED Christ.

(1 Jn. 5:2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.

Why not? You probably believe Bruce Jenner is a woman.

Irrelevant. I believe he is biologically male in sex but identifies as female by gender. I am not convinced that his trans identity is wholly genuine or particularly well handled, but frankly I don't see what that has to do with a guy who shouts about how we should accept Jesus on the internet and whether he may perhaps be a bit Christian.

One cannot be "a bit Christian."

(Lk. 9:62) Jesus said to him, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."

Regardless of your attempts at psychoanalysis and mindreading, Dear expressed strongly his beliefs.

Yes, through his many marriages, through his gambling, and through his paranoid rambling.

Many Christians have had multiple marriages. Gambling is not explicitly banned in the Bible (just "the love of money" which would also rule out capitalism). And paranoid rambling? Well, I've seen plenty of that from Christians with a martyrdom complex.

Wrong on every count. Some Christians are divorced, but it ought to be for biblical reasons. No one with his track record of marriages and spousal abuse can claim to have lived a life remotely in harmony with Jesus' teachings.

Furthermore, there is nothing in capitalism that makes it inconsistent with Christianity. Capitalism is not the love of money.

Not that any of those are how he expressed his beliefs, they are what he did despite his beliefs - or alongside them. He seems to believe he was already saved and so beyond sin.

Again, wrong.

(1 Jn. 1:8) If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

So, if he thought he was beyond sin, he doesn't understand the Bible.

Unless he is now playing up the mental side in order to get a an insanity plea.

I'll look forward to evidence that he is sane. Good luck. Really.

I am not talking about Dear here. I am talking about how some Christians claim that Catholics are not Christian (and even that Rome is the Antichrist). You have seen that, right?

Catholic doctrine is decidedly un-Christian.

No church of any substance would permit his behavior without exercising Matt 18. I'm sure you, being the expert on all things religious, are familiar with those words of Jesus. You know, the "Christ" in "Christianity?" He said someone like Dear should be treated "like an unbeliever."

"like" an unbeliever is not the same as "as" an unbeliever. And you mention Matt 18. Verses 21-35 say to forgive as many times as it takes:

Actually, you are incorrect again. The call to forgive as many times as it takes is to individuals. Treating a person "like an unbeliever" was shorthand. The verse says:

(Matt. 18:17) If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

In other words, as someone who does not know the truth and stands condemned for their lack of faith.

Matthew wrote:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Great passage, but not applicable to a church. It is to individuals (like Peter). And note: the person wants forgiveness. In the previous section of Matt 18, the person steadfastly refuses to repent.

The issue is not whether Dear is a "true" Christian, but whether he was inspired or motivated by Christianity.

Maybe that's the issue for you. It's not for me. See what I did there?

Yep, you are focusing on whether he was a "true" Christian.

No, I was taking a post-modern view: we can hold opposing truths and both claim to be right. It's marvelous, isn't it?

Just as those ISIS members who take drugs are by actions not "true" Muslims. I don't give a monkeys - The main source of his anti-abortion fervour appears to be coming from his (warped?) Christian beliefs and the examples of other Christian anti-abortionists who have killed.

It appears to be the case.

But, again, the Bible would not permit such a thing.

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll look forward to evidence that he is sane. Good luck. Really.

I believe the way it works is that to use the defence there needs to be presentation of evidence that he is not. I am sure that a decent prosecutor would explore any such claims and get an expert to see if they can challenge them.

I am not talking about Dear here. I am talking about how some Christians claim that Catholics are not Christian (and even that Rome is the Antichrist). You have seen that, right?

Catholic doctrine is decidedly un-Christian.

So, are Catholics Christians, or not?

Many Muslims claim that sects of Islam are un-Islamic (the Shia, the Alawites, the Druze, various Sufi movements).

Indeed, pretty much all religions have sects that brand others as heretical. Such is the nature of religion, perhaps, as it need to have some measure of exclusivity for the "saved" or "enlightened" as against the deviants.

Just as those ISIS members who take drugs are by actions not "true" Muslims. I don't give a monkeys - The main source of his anti-abortion fervour appears to be coming from his (warped?) Christian beliefs and the examples of other Christian anti-abortionists who have killed.

It appears to be the case.

But, again, the Bible would not permit such a thing.

[/quote]Well the NT might not. The OT is full of justified killings. Similarly, there are passages in the Quran that expressly forbid the killing of innocents.

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 the NT might not. The OT is full of justified killings. Similarly, there are passages in the Quran that expressly forbid the killing of innocents.

Funny thing, though, Christians follow the teachings of Christ. He doesn't justify an individual taking another individual's life because one believes the other to be a murderer.

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".

Well the NT might not. The OT is full of justified killings. Similarly, there are passages in the Quran that expressly forbid the killing of innocents.

Funny thing, though, Christians follow the teachings of Christ. He doesn't justify an individual taking another individual's life because one believes the other to be a murderer.

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?