Christians who make my skin crawl!

[Rhiannon]

Hi Rhi,

I agree. That's why I said, "people who act from positions of certainty...". It's the "act" bit that's the point.

Indeed, as I said several times.

But I’m not sure you were distinguishing between those who are certain that Jesus wants them for s unbeam (essentially benign) with those who believe (for example) that god hates gays. I really don’t mind how potty someone’s certainty is, so long as they don’t use it to hurt or exploit others. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

But I’m not sure you were distinguishing between those who are certain that Jesus wants them for s unbeam (essentially benign) with those who believe (for example) that god hates gays. I really don’t mind how potty someone’s certainty is, so long as they don’t use it to hurt or exploit others.

Well, it was my intention to do that - that's why I put the "act from" in there - specifically to distinguish between the two. 

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

Well, it was my intention to do that - that's why I put the "act from" in there - specifically to distinguish between the two.

Fair enough. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Following on from the teaser on the Christians who don't make my skin crawl! thread ...

That Christians just cannot help making sure that you are in no doubt that they are an active Christian.

So to bastardise the quote:

'How do you know someone is a churchgoing Christian.

...

Because they will tell you'.

Point being there is nothing more annoying than someone so obviously making sure you know that they are a churchgoing Christian, however inappropriate the context or situation. The whole point being to ensure you know how 'good' they are. Problem is that for many people whether or not you choose to go to church is a matter of personal choice and has no effect on perception of being a good person or otherwise. It is a 'yes, fine, why are you telling me this' moment.

If you want to go to church, fine by me, if you choose not too, equally fine by me - just don't try to make out that you choice makes you a better or worse person.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some Christians appear to look upon their faith as a fire insurance policy, once they take it out they are 'saved' for all eternity, even if they behave badly. There seems to be no logic to that take on faith, merely wishful thinking.

I'm wondering if moral relativity might not also amount to an insurance policy.

[Maeght]

I'm wondering if moral relativity might not also amount to an insurance policy.

Insurance policy against what?

[SteveH]

Some Christians appear to look upon their faith as a fire insurance policy, once they take it out they are 'saved' for all eternity, even if they behave badly. There seems to be no logic to that take on faith, merely wishful thinking.

Straw man. You've invented a kind of Christian who doesn't exist in order to have a pop at Christianity. What you describe is antinomianism, which is a specific heresy.

[Rhiannon]

I haven't invented them unfortunately. The ones who believe in the, 'once saved always saved', dogma are the Christians I am talking about, I have met in person quite a number of them including family members, now dead.

That seems less an insurance policy and more a license to do as they will.

The baptism of infants was an insurance policy of a kind though.

[SteveH]

I haven't invented them unfortunately. The ones who believe in the, 'once saved always saved', dogma are the Christians I am talking about, I have met in person quite a number of them including family members, now dead.

"Once saved, always saved" is not the same thing as thinking you can behave how you like with impunity. The former is Calvinism, which is a major strand within Christianity (though one that I reject); the latter is antinomianism, which is a heresy.

[SteveH]

The Christians I have met, who believed in that nonsense, didn't behave well. They cheated on their partners and their business dealings left a lot to be desired!

Then they were antinomians (or just hypocrites), and not Christians.

[SusanDoris]

Then they were antinomians (or just hypocrites), and not Christians.

Does it matter what label is attached to them or under what heding they should be filed? Of course not.  What is of concern is their behaviour.

What makes me despair are the leaders of world religions who claimn they have a truth about something supernatural. They are the emperors with no clothes. The world will eventually make them back down - the sciences, technology, the total ack of falsifiability of any such supernatural whatever, all these will be realised as the knowledge which can be relied upon to be more reliable and able to produce results, however many stumbles they, being humans,  may make along the way.

Those religions' world leaders wearing their huge metaphorical blinkers are holding back  millions of not billions from understanding and realising the full HUMAN potential of us all. ALL progress, all words, thoughts and deeds have been from human minds and bodies. not a single one has been influenced by, affected by, or acted upon  by anything supernatural.  (And yes, I know there is the vanishingly small possibility that one may turn up one day, but it hasn't done so yet.)

All gods and all imagined spirits, entities,  etc which are claimed by some to exist are ideas formed in human brains.

The people mentioned here do not make my skin crawl, they should educate themselves, put up or shut up, stop spending so much time holding back a truly secular world.

Right, I've had my say, now I'll go and do the washing up!  That will not, however, mollify my feelings.

#75 Well said, Little Roses.

[Stranger]

Then they were antinomians (or just hypocrites), and not Christians.

Not true Scotsmen either...

[Humph Warden Bennett]

So you say, but they considered themselves Christians. Christianity covers a multitude of doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, anyone can call themselves a Christian. Christianity was created by Paul, I suspect if that chap hadn't been such a prolific writer, few would have heard of Jesus. I think he would be very surprised to discover what has been attributed to him, if he came back from the dead. I am of the opinion the gospel writers, who put pen to paper well after he died, had over active imaginations when creating the stories about him.

There are alternative epistles to those of Paul! The epistle of James being one that comes to mind, its message is quite different to the Pauline epistles. There is also NT apocrypha, try the "Apocalypse of Peter" an alternative to the Revelation to John.

[SteveH]

Not true Scotsmen either...

I am aware of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, and this isn't it. There are tests of belief as to whether someone is a Christian. If they think that, being saved, they can sin to their heart's content, they are antinomians, and thus not orthodox Christians. The same applies to, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses: it's nothing to do with their moral stature; JWs are Arians, and therefore not orthodox Christians. There is a clear divide.

[Stranger]

There are tests of belief as to whether someone is a Christian.

Yes, many versions of them that different groups, all calling themselves 'Christians', disagree about.

If they think that, being saved, they can sin to their heart's content, they are antinomians, and thus not orthodox Christians.

You didn't mention 'orthodox' before. Are you claiming that the Orthodox Churches are the only true Christians?

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, many versions of them that different groups, all calling themselves 'Christians', disagree about.

You didn't mention 'orthodox' before. Are you claiming that the Orthodox Churches are the only true Christians?

I think SteveH is using orthodox in its ordinary sebse here.

[Robbie]

Orthodox with a small 'o', not the same as 'the Orthodox Church', or Churches.

Dictionary says:-
1.following or conforming to the traditional or generally accepted rules or beliefs of a religion, philosophy, or practice.

2.of the ordinary or usual type.

[Stranger]

Orthodox with a small 'o', not the same as 'the Orthodox Church', or Churches.

Dictionary says:-
1.following or conforming to the traditional or generally accepted rules or beliefs of a religion, philosophy, or practice.

2.of the ordinary or usual type.

Yes - it was a genuine question I was asking. The problem with orthodox as in the definition you give, is deciding on "generally accepted rules or beliefs" for Christianity.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Yes, many versions of them that different groups, all calling themselves 'Christians', disagree about.

You didn't mention 'orthodox' before. Are you claiming that the Orthodox Churches are the only true Christians?

I am Orthodox, not orthodox. 

[Humph Warden Bennett]

And YES we are the only true Christians 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And YES we are the only true Christians 

Bollocks

[SteveH]

The Nicene creed is generally considered the best test. If you can go along with it (perhaps treating most of it as metaphorical, as I do) you are an orthodox (small o) Christian. If not, not.

[Nearly Sane]

Bollocks

There's only one way to settle this.....

[SteveH]

Pistols at dawn!

What's Dawn done to deserve that?

[SusanDoris]

The Nicene creed is generally considered the best test. If you can go along with it (perhaps treating most of it as metaphorical, as I do) you are an orthodox (small o) Christian. If not, not.

Interesting idea. Could you go through it, pointing out how it can be taken metaphorically?  I could, clenching my teeth,   just about manage the first line bbut 'maker of heaven and earth'?