jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (181 posts)

Serial killer Christians aren't Christians?

  1. 0
    Chasukposted 4 years ago

    If self-identified Christians who do evil things aren't REALLY Christians, what about self-identified non-believers who do good things? Are they secretly believers?

    My question explores the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, which is invoked by many Christians to explain evil deeds committed by Christians.

    This is how Wikipedia illustrates the  "No true Scotsman" fallacy:

    Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
    Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
    Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

    1. aguasilver profile image88
      aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Matthew 7:19-21
      King James Version (KJV)

      Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

      Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

      Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

      Sums the situation up best, but is only valid when John 3 16:19 has been conditionally met.

      PS. I enjoy haggis and I am not Scottish. Go figure?

    2. cprice75 profile image86
      cprice75posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus said that not everyone who calls him Lord will enter the kingdom.  He said he will tell them to depart because he never knew them.  There is also a parable about wheat and tares.  The tares grow up with the wheat and no one can really differentiate between the two until the harvest.  The wheat are the real thing, while the tares are false disciples of Christ.

      Those who do not claim to be Christian are not Christian based upon their own testimony, even if they do good things.   They can be atheist, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, etc. and still do positive things, but it does not make them closet believers.  The jury is still out on ALL who claim to be Christian.

    3. 0
      kimberlyslyricsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      serial killers are simply serial killers-nothing else matters.  smile

      1. aguasilver profile image88
        aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        ...and thirded (if that word existed) so we have a quorum of three witnesses!

        (Nice to see you Kimberly) smile

      2. blake4d profile image80
        blake4dposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        But killer cereals are definitely Canadians

        1. A Thousand Words profile image80
          A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          LoL

    4. jreuter profile image88
      jreuterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi again Chasuk, a good question, and one that I will probably answer in a different manner from many Christians here. However, I've not taken the time to read the VAST line of commentary in this forum, so I could be wrong.

      I would initially argue with your line of logic. I for one have never maintained that a non-believer cannot perform good deeds. I believe that all humans, being made in the image of God, possess the ability to perform acts of amazing kindness and generosity no matter the beliefs they hold. Furthermore, I would also argue that a Christian is not immune to sin, nor does the Bible make this promise, so on both counts, I disagree.

      But what of Christians who are, in your scenario, serial killers? Well, yes, as nearly every other Christian, I'd have to seriously question the true motives and heart of a man whom professed to have the peace of Christ in his heart while hacking and slaying innocent victims.  But also, I will be the first to admit that extremely heinous acts have been carried out in the name of Christ by men and women whom I am very hesitant to label as non-believers.  Martin Luther, for instance, was vehemently anti-Semitic later in his career, and John Calvin was quoted as promising that Servetus (a heretic) would not leave his city alive. So what am I, as a Christian, to do with such baggage? These are two of the greatest reformers in Protestant history!  Beyond this, look at the Crusades. Can anyone honestly say that out of all the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who partook in such atrocities, not one of them was truly a Christian?

      At the end of the day, yes, the fruit bore by the Christian should certainly be evidence of something profound, redemptive, and gracious. But on that same note, I see some serious dangers in the categorization of people as bad (non-believers) and good (Christians). This is not a simplicity which was presented to us by Christ, nor is it a mindset which is at the heart of the Gospel.

      Thanks for your continual probing of the hearts and minds of believers and non-believers alike. You remain one of my favorite atheist/agnostics here on Hubpages, and I do wish more would take your example.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        excellent post

        1. 59
          ScepticFaithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed

    5. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, that's one way to look at it.

      There's two strains of thought on this:

      1) A true Christian is one who is following Christ and at least trying to follow what He said in the New Testament. By this logic, anyone who commits multiple, cold-blooded murders (serial killers) cannot be a true Christian because they have broken so many of Jesus' commandments.

      2) Anyone who invokes the name of Christ at any time for any reason is a Christian. It's unbelievable the number of people who claim Hitler was a Christian based on this line of thinking (his confirmation as a Catholic when a boy.)

      If 1) is correct, then serial killers cannot be true Christians. They can be completely convinced of what they are doing and why, but they are not following Jesus' actual teachings. And if this line of thinking is correct, then the number of Christians cited in the world, and especially in America, is way too high.

      If 2) is correct then all the people in these forums and out in the world who feel that Christianity needs to be squashed by any means necessary are on the right track, and the number of Christians cited in the world is way too low.

      I don't think I need to tell you which side I'm on.

      1. 60
        Ettinaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Your two options are way too extreme. I suggest a third option:

        Anyone who, at the time under discussion, described themselves as being a Christian is a Christian.

        For example, this takes into account conversio in and out of Christianity (I used to be a Christian, and in fact was both baptized and received first communion, but at the age of 8 I became an atheist and my actions afterwards, good or bad, cannot be considered the actions of a Christian). So, if you are asking whether Hitler was Christian when he ruled Germany, I would base that only on evidence of his beliefs during his rule of Germany. (He probably was a warped kind of Christian from what I can gather.)

        And 1) is not a practically useful definition, because when you meet someone who calls themselves a Christian, you don't necessarily know what is in their heart. I've heard of some people who use the fact that someone is Christian as a suggestion that they have good moral character - that's very foolish, because people of any moral character can call themselves Christians, and unless you know them or their reputation you can't say what kind of person they are.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You make several good points but I stand by what I wrote. I agree that it's true that you can't know what is truly in someone's heart, that does make it a little problematic, but that doesn't change whether the two strains, though mutually contradictory, are intrinsically  true. And I also was responding to Chasuk's invocation of the "True Scotsman Fallacy."

          By the way, Hiter hated Christianity. Hated it! This has been documented as early as the book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" so I'm not just pulling that out of thin air. So to call Hitler any kind of Christian at all is to agree with thought line number 2.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hitler stated in his book, "Mein Kampf" that he was doing Gods work. Regardless though, he acted no different and used the same reasoning as the Christians who 'eliminated' witches, or those who incited the Inquisitions and the Crusades.

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, he did. That changes nothing at all. The man who thought that Providence was on his side also was known to have a personal relationship with the devil, had the Bible rewritten, and not only hijacked churches but is on record as hating Christianity. If you're going to look at history, look at the whole thing, don't just take one little part and try to extrapolate out.

              I've said before and I say again that I don't deny that bad things were done in the name of Christ, things that Jesus Himself would not have condoned. To condemn all of Christianity based on that is too simplistic. I'm sure I could find things you've done and if that's all I had to go on, say that you're a very, very bad person indeed. Wouldn't be fair, but that's the logic.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I understand what you're saying, Hitler said one thing and then said the opposite, he did that with almost everything when it suited his purpose.

                The Roman Catholic church persecuted Christians and Jews, the Jews persecuted Christians and the Christians persecuted heretics. Yes, history is rife with religious persecutions. Religions have cause a lot of conflict throughout history.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I have never denied that. Pascal himself said that men never do evil so cheerfully as when they do it in the name of religion. That doesn't mean the religion is bad in and of itself. A person who has studied the religion and the history thereof knows that many men who claimed to follow it actually went their own way, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of a self-serving need for glory.

                  So just to be clear, I agree with your point that history is full of religious strife and strife caused by religion without agreeing with your underlying assumption that religion is, in and of itself, a bad thing.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Perhaps, but as yet and considering it's long violent history, religion has yet to show it is a good thing.

              2. getitrite profile image78
                getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You blindly assume that Jesus, himself, never did any bad things, therefore anyone doing bad things is going against Jesus.  Not true.

                Cursing a fig tree, or suggesting that gullible followers cut off body parts, and gouge out eyes, is not anything I would consider good.  Neither is commanding that one must HATE his entire family in order to be a disciple.  Downright inhumane.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No serious scholar thinks that Jesus was telling people to gouge out their eyes or cut off their limbs. Cursing the fig tree is pretty well understood to be symbolic. Yeah, Jesus told people that they had to love Him more than anything else, but again, no serious scholar thinks that Jesus, a Jewish man, was telling people to never have anything to do with their family ever again if they didn't follow Jesus.

                  Please don't assume you know what I assume.

          2. A Troubled Nurse profile image60
            A Troubled Nurseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Stalin stated in his autobiography that it was his belief in Atheism, and the realization than humans are nothing but a set of atoms, that helped him to finish his job.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, but how many commandments is a Christian allowed to break before they are no longer considered a Christian? I would suspect only 1.



        For any reason? Are you sure about that? This one could open up a can of worms.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'll get back to you on this one because I wrote this a month or more ago and I seem to remember writing more in that particular statetement.

        2. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Okey Dokey, let's see what we can do with this one.

          Here's the thread:


          I replied


          You picked out:


          To which the answer is: You are correct. But it's one specific commandment, and that commandment is to follow Jesus and accept Him as your Lord and Savior. I know this sounds unfair, but no matter what you've done in life, if you have truly accepted Jesus in your heart, you will go to Heaven. However that does not mean you have carte blanche to do whatever you want in life. If you've truly accepted Jesus, you're trying to clean up your act. Lots of people who have done things that Jesus said not to do, yet still think they have accepted Jesus, are not going to go to Heaven.



          You and I both know that can of worms has been open for a long time. But that's not what I meant and that's not what I wrote. I was pointing out a certain line of thinking, one that I don't agree with, and it was followed directly by using Hitler as an example of that kind of thinking. I don't believe that anyone who has ever invoked the name of Christ is a Christian.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not sure if that makes sense. What is the number of commandments someone can break before they don't go to heaven? Are there specific ones or just in general? I don't recall reading anything about that in the Bible that discriminates one commandment over another.

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There's nothing in the Bible that says "You must keep this commandment but you can break that one." It's more like taking the Bible as a whole, beginning to end. If you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and you repent of your sins (which means that you're aware of how truly awful you are, and I don't mean just you specifically but everyone, including me) then it doesn't matter how many commandments you've broken, you'll still be accepted by God.
              Conversely, if you don't accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, even if you've kept every single commandment, then you're still not going to Heaven. That's pretty much the gist of passages like The Sheep and the Goats or The Wide and Narrow Path.

      3. A Troubled Nurse profile image60
        A Troubled Nurseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        To be a true Christian is a spirit of the heart. Curse the sin, but love the sinner and try to bring him back to society.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Amen!

    6. autumn18 profile image67
      autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's all kind of subjective though. Some people say that murderers aren't true Christians because killing is a sin. But isn't lying also a sin? So all Christians who lie aren't true Christians? I'm sure most of them wouldn't think that though.

      There's no way to judge if someone is a true Christian. The closest thing I've heard to defining a Christian in a non subjective way is anyone who accepts Jesus as their savior. All your sins big and small (because they are equal right?) are forgiven if you accept that. Again, not something that can be judged.

      Since there is more to being a believer than doing good deeds and being a decent human I would say no, they aren't secretly believers of a deity.

      1. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well said.

    7. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Everyone does 'bad' things. As I understand it Christians are simply people who say sorry for the bad things they've done and try really hard not to do any more, based on their belief that Jesus is the Christ and their desire to share eternal life. 'Forgiveness is an essential tenet of Christianity. A serial killer who repents can be considered a Christian. I think it depends on a person's attitude towards the wrong they have done.

  2. tlmcgaa70 profile image70
    tlmcgaa70posted 4 years ago

    just because someone calls themselves a christian does not mean they are one. a true CHRISTian lives in obedience to the laws of GOD and accept that CHRIST was HIS Son and their Saviour. their words and actions prove their claims. all others who claim to be christian not only take GODs name in vain...that means to claim to follow and obey HIM then do wicked acts that goes against everything HE teaches...but the only god they worship is themselves. they may believe they worship GOD but what they are doing is creating a god they can comfortably worship and saying it is The GOD.

    1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
      DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I would say, that if we base who is Christian on actions alone...Then there are very, very few true christians in the world today...and a few who don't claim the title who would be considered one as well..

      1. tlmcgaa70 profile image70
        tlmcgaa70posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        exactly

    2. getitrite profile image78
      getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Then there are absolutely NO true Christians!



      That pretty much describes the majority of people.



      And that's exactly what you are doing as well.  I guess you can now see that even you are not a true Christian.

      1. tlmcgaa70 profile image70
        tlmcgaa70posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        that  opinion is not surprising coming from someone with no understanding of who and what GOD is or HIS Son, The CHRIST.

        1. getitrite profile image78
          getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And you think YOU do?  I'll bet my life's fortune that you don't know anymore than anyone else does about the existence of a god.



          So if you know them, I would like for you to introduce me to them.  Could you do that?  Just name the place and time.  I'm going to buy a new suit, just for the occasion.

          1. tlmcgaa70 profile image70
            tlmcgaa70posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            your life's fortune would not be enough to cover it...and you would lose it, guaranteed.

            i dont have to introduce them to you...you will meet them soon enough, just be patient.

  3. FlowOfThought profile image61
    FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago

    A Christian is someone who accepts Christ as their savior good, bad, or pure evil. If not, then only non-believers would be going to hell.

    1. tlmcgaa70 profile image70
      tlmcgaa70posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      i guess that explains why there are so many "christians" out there then. if that s what they believe then they are not accountable for their actions and can live and do as they please. a true CHRISTian doesnt just accept that CHRIST is the Son of GOD and their Saviour...once they are saved they change their lives and live in obedience to GODs laws. otherwise they are just copping out and taking GODs name in vain

      1. hookedhuntress profile image60
        hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        tlmcgaa70,
        I am curious as to what laws you are following..is it just the 10 commandments or the well over 1000 commands there are in the bible?

        1. tlmcgaa70 profile image70
          tlmcgaa70posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          the laws in the OT were for the Israelites. CHRIST showed us what laws (the ten commandments) that any who choose to follow HIM were to obey. HE also said that all the laws (ten commandments) can be summed up in 2...Love the Lord your GOD with all your heart, strength and mind and love your neighbor (your fellow man) as yourself.

  4. 0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    I'm afraid I have to side with the Christians on this one. I don't see a fallacy. Anyone can join a church. The doors are open to all. Anyone can go to church. There are plenty of pews. We are all free to check whatever block we choose in a census form.

    If a guy with an IQ of 100 took the mensa test, with a copy of the answers in hand...he could brag that he was a genius.  You could argue all day long that he wasn't, but without knowing he cheated on the test you couldn't prove he wasn't qualified to be a member. You couldn't crawl into his head to see his thought processes.

    I can say I love you. I could buy you little presents for no reason, I could agree to marry you and have your kids. There is no guarantee that any of my actions are motivated by love. You'd simply have to take it on faith.

    It is similar with religion. It's all in the head. Christianity is built on the premise that the follower attempts to mimic the Christ. He didn't do bad things.

    1. getitrite profile image78
      getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, Jesus did do bad things...like cursing an innocent fig tree, and telling people they are going to hell.  Of course "bad" is a relative term.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        OK. You got me on that one. smile

      2. MickeySr profile image88
        MickeySrposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How do you judge, I mean you personally, judge if what Jesus did was good or bad? Within the parameters of the accounts given, the fig tree He cursed was His own fig tree that He made so as to curse it exactly where and when he cursed it (so that, that's what it was for, to be cursed by Him) and those He told were going to hell were going to hell, how is He at fault for telling them the truth?

        1. getitrite profile image78
          getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It's called critical thinking.  Duh!



          The truth?!!!  Don't make me laugh.

          Go ahead and keep making silly excuses for your brutally foolish beliefs.  No matter what kind of a spin you put on this garbage it is reprehensible behavior, especially for a deity...but for a foolish, spoiled, rotten, destructive child...YES!

          Which proves that this garbage was written by some stupid primitive psychopath.  But I see you, blindly, accept this as the Word of The True God.  What a pity.

          1. MickeySr profile image88
            MickeySrposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What you've presented above, your response to my honest question, does not appear as the critical thinking of an adult - but carries the tone of the foolish, spoiled, rotten, destructive reactionary rant of a child. What little portion of this world do you live in, what do you do with your days, how long have you been here on earth - genuine, honest 'critical thinking' would stop you in your tracks from imagining that you are practicing 'critical thinking' to assert that there is any legitimacy to you judging the validity of an infinite, eternal deity's plans and purposes, or in concluding if there is an infinite, eternal deity.

            I was not born into Christianity, I am by nature not merely a critical thinker but an iconoclast - I follow or fall for nothing "blindly", I read the Bible on my own, apart from any teachers or churches at the same time I was reading Bhagavad Gita & the Koran, Comte & Mill, etc, etc. The violent knee-jerk disdain many have for Christianity reveals far more about their own narrow-mindedness and lack of critical thinking than they fault Christians for.

      3. tlmcgaa70 profile image70
        tlmcgaa70posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Isaiah 55:6-9...

        6Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:

        7Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

        8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

        9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

        who is man to claim that what GOD (or CHRIST) did was good or bad righteous or wicked? who can possibly understand HIS reasons for what HE does unless HE reveals them to us. GOD is our Creator, that makes HIM Master over all HE created. and that means HE can do as HE pleases...even if we dont like it. GOD said HE created pharaoh for no other purpose than to be used as an example. Pharaoh was created in order that GOD use him to show the world that HE IS GOD. and HE has that right.

        1. getitrite profile image78
          getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What an egotistical maniac.  Why should a God be so insecure that He has to tell me how much better He is than me? 



          Any moral man should question the behavior of anybody.  That includes these silly Gods that have been fraudulently introduced to a gullible populous...lest we be conned.




          It has been revealed to me that His ways are that of a spoiled, childish, unjust, bloodthirsty psychopath.  What else do I need to have revealed?



          You don't know who or what created us.  You have only been brainwashed to believe that you do. There is no evidence that a god created us, therefore he's not master over anything.  There is not even any evidence of his existence.



          It's a good thing that He doesn't exist, thereby saving us from this tyrannical nonsense.



          That's brutally ignorant.

          1. Eric Newland profile image60
            Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Or maybe He was trying to teach us humility, which you seem determined to prove was a good idea.

            1. getitrite profile image78
              getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h397/Grishny/th_laughing-jesus.jpg

            2. 59
              ScepticFaithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              LOL

          2. tlmcgaa70 profile image70
            tlmcgaa70posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ""What an egotistical maniac.  Why should a God be so insecure that He has to tell me how much better He is than me?  ""

            the one who is acting insecure is you. the fact is...GOD IS so much better than us. one cannot expect a simpleton to understand what someone with the IQ of a genius is saying...GOD is simply telling us that unless HE reveals a thing to us, it is not possible for us to understand HIM.

            ""Any moral man should question the behavior of anybody.  That includes these silly Gods that have been fraudulently introduced to a gullible populous...lest we be conned.""

            when we first come to GOD, we question...as we learn more about HIM from HIM...we realize there is no need to question.

            ""It has been revealed to me that His ways are that of a spoiled, childish, unjust, bloodthirsty psychopath.  What else do I need to have revealed?""

            a thief sees everyone else as a thief, a cheater suspects no one is faithful, a liar feels everyone is lying to them...so if you see GOD as a spoiled, childish, unjust, bloodthirsty psychopath...well, i am sure you can see where i am going with this.

            ""You don't know who or what created us.  You have only been brainwashed to believe that you do. There is no evidence that a god created us, therefore he's not master over anything.  There is not even any evidence of his existence.""

            i DO know both WHO and WHAT created us. but then, nothing i say will convince you otherwise so i wont waste my time trying to explain how I know this.

            ""That's brutally ignorant.""

            no...thats GOD. you can push against the mountain your whole life (denying HIS existence) but you will never move that mountain...you cant change the facts. GOD exists (you can deny HIM all you want, it isn't going to make HIM go away). GOD has authority over not just us, but all creation. if HE so chooses, HE could destroy us all, but instead HE chose to offer those who would accept it salvation. if we arent saved, then the fault lies with us and only us. GOD gave us the information we needed to gain salvation. if we choose not to believe HIM or accept what HE tells us, that is our problem, not HIS. we are told what will happen to us if we reject HIM. you cant blame HIM if despite knowing what will happen you still reject HIM. YOU make your own choices. take responsibility for them.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I would like to comment on your last statement because I believe if Christians would stop and compassionately think that through they would understand how foolish that statement truly is.

              There is no proof. And  history has been recorded long enough to be able to definitively say there is no proof. This being said...why would a loving God find fault in someone who questions His existence? Where is the logic in the threat of hell?

              You say you know God. Good for you, but your experiences aren't those of another person. With no proof....would you believe? With no proof to make you believe, would you think hell was fair?

              If the muslims are right, will it be fair to end up in a muslim hell, even though you fervently believed in the Bible?

              1. Disappearinghead profile image88
                Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well said.

                I do believe in God, and I just cannot deny it, even though I have previously walked away, but indeed I have no proof of his existence at all. What I have are subjective experiences, that can be either explained by God's intervention or equally by random chance. It's as if I'm wired up to believe, but I have no concrete proof, just a philosophical argument that says human consciousness and our observance of the universe appear to make more sense if a God exists.

                Christians say all the time that God speaks to them, yet don't see the irony when another Christian also claims that God is telling them something completely different. Did God speak to them or was it their own imagination? Is the Holy Spirit talking to their 'spirit' or is it just their unconscious mind working in the background because the human spirit doesn't actually exist? Miraculous healings, placebo effects, or the unconscious capacity of the mind to direct healing to the body. It's all a matter of faith, there is no testable evidence.

                So assuming God exists, how can he possibly condemn anyone to an eternal torment in some hell on the basis that the person has not heard a sufficiently brilliant argument to prompt their rational mind to believe? Who's at fault, the believer for not being believable, or the unbeliever? How can the believer tell someone that God loves them when alive, but hates them when they are dead?

                Besides which, if Jesus has paid the penalty for all sin, then how come that sacrifice falls short when it comes to the sin of unbelief? It was either a full and finished sacrifice or it wasn't.

                And to all those Christians who think I or anyone else is being deceived by Satan in some battle for our souls, God never told you that, your pastor did.

              2. tlmcgaa70 profile image70
                tlmcgaa70posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                consider this...if a person CHOSE to get into drug dealing because it was fast money, and they knew if they didn't get killed they would eventually get caught, but still figured it was worth the risk, and then one day they get caught...should the law just slap them on the hand and turn them loose because they made the wrong choice?
                it is no different where it comes to accepting or rejecting GOD. we all have a choice to make. we all know the consequences of making the wrong choice. yet every day thousands consciously choose to reject GOD. it is not a case of choosing in ignorance. people dont accidently choose to reject GOD.

                GOD does love us. and because HE loves us, we must be punished for our sins or we will never learn. and GOD and logic do not go together well...at least using mans logic.
                as i said already...when we first come to GOD we DO question, and there  is nothing wrong with that...but when you begin to understand GOD through HIS revelations, you come to understand there is no need to question HIM. HE sees the big picture wheras we see only little bits...HE does what HE does because HE knows what HE does. because we cannot see what HE sees, we often think HE is wrong...unless you realize things are far better off in HIS hands.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Your answer completely ignores her question(s).  I think they are valid questions and that being ignored does nothing to help.  If you don't know the answers then say so. Then go looking for the answers. If you do know the answers though, then wouldn't it be beneficial to give them?

                  1. tlmcgaa70 profile image70
                    tlmcgaa70posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    if these are the questions you are referring to...""You say you know God. Good for you, but your experiences aren't those of another person. With no proof....would you believe? With no proof to make you believe, would you think hell was fair?""...i thought it was pretty obvious already what my answer is...i agree there is no physical proof that GOD exists, yet i believe HE does anyway. and yes i believe hell is fair. i do not believe because i was brainwashed into believing...i have believed without question that HE exists since I was 3 yrs old, when i died and met CHRIST. i have spent my life walking with HIM and learning from HIM. i do not need physical proof to know HE exists.

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The problem I see in your response is that the existence of everything you used in your example is not in dispute. Drugs exist. Drug dealers exist. Law enforcement exists. The prisons we house the criminals in exist. If I tried to argue the nonexistence of anything in your example you could readily show me each. I wouldn't have to take your word for it because there is physical proof.

                  Do you see the problem? Can we try again? I see why prison is fair in your example, but can you give me a logical explanation why eternal damnation makes sense when someone simply accepts the fact that God is not evident in our reality?

                  1. tlmcgaa70 profile image70
                    tlmcgaa70posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    to both melissa and emile...this is the main reason i usually stay out of religion forums. what it boils down to is this...you dont believe and i do. because of that difference in beliefs, we can talk in circles all day long and still not change our beliefs. what is undeniable proof to me is hogwash to you. where you see no proof i see it. you missed my point completely emile. and you continue to miss it.  why should i keep trying to make it? melissa...GOD shows HIMSELF to people every day, but because they choose to reject HIM, they never see HIM. individuals are responsible for themselves. it simply makes no sense to me to reject GOD knowing the consequences of doing so, then blaming HIM for it.

                  2. aguasilver profile image88
                    aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I seem to think that God will not be applying your 'logic' to the situation, if He is God and if He meant what He said in scripture.

                    What (IMHO based upon reading the bible) He would be judging the issue on is whether the individual had shown any demonstrated desire to spend eternity with Him, or without Him, that's why He put those sneaky little bits about FAITH and HOPE into His book, hints that folk could ponder and decide upon.

                    I came to my crossroads of faith, looked at the situation, made my decision to explore further (with an open mind) and found that His words and promises were truth. Case closed (for me).

                3. 60
                  Christianbelieverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The only thing I see that is misguided in your belief of the Glory and Love of God is that we must be punished for our sins. Christ died on the Cross so we would not have to get what our sins deserve. The Bible only says that unbelievers have enough "proof" by the Creation to believe or not believe. Hell is eternal removal from the presence and love of God, so eternal damnation is eternal separation from God. I am not sure who the Christian was that said this, " but we as Christians should not assume to know the furniture in heaven or the temperature in Hell"  I will go with that.
                  The faith to believe in God is also given by God. He knows who will be saved and who will not. There is proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

              3. 59
                ScepticFaithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Greetings Emile R
                Reading your comments I am assuming that you are an intellectually honest thinker.
                I like that.

                Please consider my thoughts on some of your statements below:

                Emile R: There is no proof.
                ScepticFaith: Proof is a subjective term as defined by almost all courts throughout the world.
                In Capital Cases the burden of Proof is defined as ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’.
                If this is burden of proof that you demand of God...
                Then you are correct. None exists, nor can it. For if such proof existed it would violate the free will of us all. We would all have no choice but to except the fact that 1 plus 1 equals 2.
                In Misdemeanor Criminal & Higher Civil matters the burden of proof is lessened, defined as ‘Clear & Convincing Evidence’. In lower Civil Matters the burden of proof is lower still, defined as ‘Preponderance of the Evidence’.
                It is in these arenas that the Proof of the God Hypothesis holds merit.

                Emile R: And history has been recorded long enough to be able to definitively say there is no proof.
                ScepticFaith: Recorded history has a beginning. The Big Bang!! We know that both time & space are products of the big bang. The laws of physics dictate that an effect cannot exist without a cause. Both space & time are results (effect) of the Singularity (big bang). Therefore whatever caused them MUST be outside of them. Not to mention the incredible balance and precise fine tuning that followed. I admit that Random Chance / Happy Accident / and Fortunate Luck are all plausible explanations. So is Design! The GOD Hypothesis has merit by preponderance of the evidence as does random chance & happy good luck. Those who deny Design & except Happy Accident & Random Chance do so, NOT based on ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’- PROOF, rather on the much lower criteria of ‘Preponderance of the Evidence’.

                Emile R: This being said...why would a loving God find fault in someone who questions His existence?
                ScepticFaith: Please research my answer to your question.
                According to the Bible, God distinguished those who question from those who deny.
                The tomb was opened, not to let Jesus out, but to let his disciples in.
                There are 2 kinds of unbelievers. Those who don’t believe & those who won’t believe.
                If you don’t believe & you are truly ‘One Who Questions’, God finds no fault in you.
                Seek with an intellectually honest mind & an open heart and you will find.


                Emile R: Where is the logic in the threat of hell?
                Heaven & Hell are the logical conclusion of free will.
                Hell is not a threat it is a reality.
                How can free will be free if there is no choice?
                If God were to say Mankind you have 2 choices:
                1. You can Love & serve me and I’ll be your God OR
                2. I’ll be your God & you can love and serve me.
                DOES NOT WORK

                No! Ultimately the choice is today what it was in the beginning.
                You can Love & serve Him and He’ll be your God.
                Or, you can love & serve you and you’ll be your own god.

                If you are your own god, then you would be VERY unhappy in Heaven.
                You are not God there.
                If there is nothing in you that desires to be one with God & seeking his will. Then Heaven is not the place for you.

      4. hookedhuntress profile image60
        hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A fig tree is often used symbolically.In this case it represents spiritual barrenness.

        Jesus was symbolically denouncing Israel as a nation and, in a sense, even denouncing unfruitful “Christians” (that is, people who profess to be Christian but have no evidence of a relationship with Christ).

        A person would have to know the scriptures and not take them out of context to understand this.

        Joh 15:1  I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
        2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
        3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
        4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
        5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
        6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (KJV)

        1. getitrite profile image78
          getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Did it ever occur to you just how foolish it is for an omnipotent, omniscient being to play games like this?  The understanding of His word should be clear to everyone.  I can't depend on your explaining His word to me.  You might have the wrong interpretation as well.  In other words, you don't know anymore about what this God meant than I do.

          1. tlmcgaa70 profile image70
            tlmcgaa70posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Matthew 13:15
            For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

            GOD does not play games. if a person chooses to reject HIM, HE has every right to close their minds and hearts so that they can take the path to hell they themselves have chosen. and if you were serious about wanting to understand the correct interpretation of GODs Word, the only place to find it is from GOD HIMSELF, and since you reject HIM, i doubt that will happen any time soon.

            1. 59
              ScepticFaithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Do not enter vain confrontations

          2. hookedhuntress profile image60
            hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            getitrite,Did it ever occur to you just how foolish what you are saying is?

            Demanding to know medicine does not magically cause you to know medicine.

            Medicine is not clear to people unless they study it.

            "The understanding of His word should be clear to everyone."

            How can someone clearly understand something they do not take the time to read or study to know.
            I can want to know medicine,physics,chemistry but unless I pick up a book and start reading and studying it, I am not going to know any of those things.

            How can a person expect to know God or His word unless they pick up the book and read it.

            How do you know if someone's interpretation is right? You have to know the word of God.

            I can say 2+2=10,someone that does not know math could believe that but someone that does know math will come along eventually and say,Hey wait a minute that is not right..but how does someone know if that is right or wrong unless they study for themselves.

            No, you can't depend on someone explaining His word to you and you are not supposed to either.You are supposed to study for yourself.

            The reason people will follow a false teacher is because they haven't taken the time to know the word of God for themselves.

            The understanding of His word can be clear to everyone who takes the time to pick up the book(bible) and prayerfully study it.

            1. getitrite profile image78
              getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              See if it were that simple, there would not be 38,000 different denominations.
              You only think that it's that simple, because you have been led to believe that you have some special way of understanding a nonsensical bible.  You don't.

              1. brotheryochanan profile image60
                brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Its also agenda that created the 108 denominations (this has been hashed out before about 38,000 denominations - try to keep up)
                Catholicism has many denominational names but they are all the same denomination. There are many baptist names: bethel baptist and new life baptist but they are both baptist and not two different denominations.

                The relatively few truly viable as denominations are there for different reasons:
                - we have new denomination which are not denominations at all because they don't want a denominational name tag. City Gate church for example.
                criteria:
                - some cults do not recognize jesus as the bible portrays Jesus and there are a few variations to how jesus is recognized, hence, different denominations.
                - catholicism has anglican, and churches named after different 'patron' saints

                Of course people who recognize Jesus for who he is and his relationship with God will obtain truths that cult followers will not. This is Gods intention. To bless those that are correct and well, not bless those who are wrong.

                1. mischeviousme profile image61
                  mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I believe the stories of jesus to be glorifications to a degree, the purpose of which was to capture the mind. Much like the hook in a novel, using the imagination to control the reader or listener. In the case of a listener, the correct term is catch, though their basically of the same meaning.

          3. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            no his word should not be clear to everyone. His ways are clear and obvious but his word does not have to be. Things that are sought after, fought for and discovered are things that we hold dear and appreciate.
            Like the dad who keeps buying cars for replacement of the ones his son drives to the ground until the day the son buys his own car with his own cash - just an example.

            Gods words are hidden from those who are not worthy. Those that are not worthy, which is to say do not have a relationship with God will always promote false doctrine, they will take things out of context, they will ignore parts of the bible and they will twist the words - and all this happens so that God may frustrate them and teach correctly what are his words.
            And there are more reasons why Gods word does not have to be clear to everyone - everyone already knows basically what God expects.

      5. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        cursing a fig tree is a bad thing?
        making pharisees aware of their hypocrisy is a bad thing?
        appropriating a definition of 'a place of eternal suffering' to the word 'hell' and then saying that Jesus told people they were going there; is a bad thing but that is not what Jesus did, having no catholic understandings at that time.

        So what is your point again?

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Y'all shouldn't feel too bad about any of this; Buddha also talked to trees and it seemed to help him...  *sigh*

          1. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            a timely *sigh*

  5. tsmog profile image84
    tsmogposted 4 years ago

    Serial killer Christians aren't Christians?

    I would have to side with the logic of the fallacy statement in general. I will shy away from the headline being stuck on the word killer and all of the many, many connotations of it.

    A red herring of sorts.

    The fallacy may be viewed in another way.

    You can satisfy all the people some of the time,
    you can satisfy some of the people all the time,
    but you can't satisfy all the people all the time.

    The headline is a distraction. A slight of hands of the magician. Writing in the formal sense says it is done with an appeal. That appeal is the emotional appeal.

    It is followed by the either/or fallacy. Again a slight of hands. Argue one fallacy with another.

    Further along the argument being proposed is offered ethical support with definitive reliance on a source. This is not a slight of hands by the magician.

    What is being questioned is the validity of the fallacy statement as justification. Not the headline. The headline can be stated, Dead people aren't people? Or, Kids aren't children? Or, Hubber author's aren't authors?

    Offering a definition of fallacy in reason we discover Fallacies are indefensible flaws in arguments.

  6. wilderness profile image98
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    Your question is impossible to answer as we cannot define "Christian" in a manner that is acceptable to all.

    In general, those that claim certain sects or other people aren't "true" Christians really mean that they don't agree with the speakers interpretations or beliefs.  That Catholics, or Mormons, or this person or that isn't a "true" Christian does not seem to mean they aren't Christian (i.e. believe in Christ as savior) but rather means they have interpreted the bible or other scriptures a little differently.

    From the outside looking in, it becomes apparent that no one is a "true" Christian as there is no consensus on what to believe.  Either that or anyone believing in Christ is a True Christian.  Even those that do evil deeds (we are all sinners) while believing.

    Either way, though, a non-believer cannot considered to be a Christian regardless of how well they live their life and are thus destined for Hell.

  7. mischeviousme profile image61
    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago

    If I choose to call my self a buddhist, I am accepting the title only. If I choose to live as a buddhist, no title is necessary. The same could be said of any truly spiritual religioso, they claim nothing more than the love of God. They do not speak of religion or belief, rather, they choose to be kind and holy.

  8. Stacie L profile image89
    Stacie Lposted 4 years ago

    Haven't people killed in the name of religion for generations?
    Killing in the name of a religion goes on now,with countries or individuals.
    Using a faith as a reason to kill is cowardly.

  9. Eric Newland profile image60
    Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago

    If you're a Scotsman then you were a Scotsman by birth, you will be a Scotsman until the day you die, and moreover, you didn't choose to be a Scotsman.

    I would perhaps reword the posit to make it more universally acceptable: the ACTIONS of a serial killer are not Christian. They violate the sixth commandment; even virtually any interpretation that would allow for justified killing. I tend to believe that if killing a wicked person is the only clear way to protect your own life or the lives of innocents, and you have the power to do so, then it might be a violation of the sixth commandment NOT to act. But I also acknowledge that there are plenty of cases where that kind of justification is abused. That's a different problem.

    The actions of serial killers are also selfish, cruel, and tend to be taken in order to satiate prurient interests. Barring a psychotic delusion there's not even the possibility of misguided good intent in his actions. There isn't a smidgen of sound Christian doctrine.

    Moreover, a Christian doesn't own another Christian's sins. If a serial killer self identifies as a Christian that shouldn't reflect in any way on one's perception of other Christians (unless they endorse his actions). His sins, and any remorse, penance, or restitution for them are between him and God...from a religious standpoint, anyway. There should be no requirement to justify, account for, apologize for, or excuse another's actions. No more than a Scotsman is responsible for a fellow Scotsman who doesn't eat haggis.

    1. getitrite profile image78
      getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, serial killing is totally acceptable behavior from the Christian perspective.

      God, who is Christ's father, was the first serial killer...going house to house, killing all the first born in Egypt.

      I don't see Christians having a problem with this.

      1. Eric Newland profile image60
        Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It ended the oppression of hundreds of thousands of Hebrews and doubtless saved many of their lives as well. Their own children had already been massacred once at the command of the Egyptian royalty. Refer to my interpretation of the sixth commandment.

        It's a shame that some of those killed probably were not directly involved in te enslavement of the Hebrews, but perhaps killing Pharoah and his advisors and officers would have devastated Egypt's infrastructure and resulted in civil war and many more deaths. Hard to say.

      2. MickeySr profile image88
        MickeySrposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        getitrite ~ this oft offered argument by example is observably ludicrous, if only those presenting it would consider their point objectively and not be so delighted to imagine they are offering incontrovertible evidence against Christianity. It's bad enough when the example is men-to-men; people will say that the Bible tells us that Abraham cheated on his wife, etc, so God must obviously approve of this conduct so we can all commit adultery if we want, it's ok with God - when one of the very central themes and point of Scripture is to provide us a record of man's continual wrongdoing.

        But with God-to-men parallels, the argument seems to me outlandishly observably ludicrous - again, if those offering it were not so eagerly pleased to charge Christianity with fault. God created all that exists, He knows all that there is to know (past, present, and future), there is no cosmic rule or morality above Him - He is by whatever He does defining what is good and right, etc - so if that being, God, determines to remove anyone or any number of ones from His creation, if God kills one or thousands, how on earth do we conclude that this demonstrates that it's fine for any of us little hairy creatures who know next to nothing and have no authority over anyone, how do we figure if God can do it then it's good and proper for us to do it as well?!

        And, whenever folks present these lame arguments they rarely even present their own best case - why point to God killing these certain people in this one particular region in order to move their leader to free slaves, when you could point to God wiping all of humanity except one family off the face of the earth . . . everyone, from everywhere, many who had no slaves or were not cheating on their wives, etc, everybody on the planet killed. The logic of the argument is terribly flawed, but at least offer your best case.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hes a broken record

    2. 0
      Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You are correct, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy uses a specious analogy. Thank you -- sincerely -- for pointing it out.

      I believe that the "No True Scotsman" fallacy exists, but I now see that the analogy used to illustrate it is broken.

      This fallacy needs a new analogy and a new name.

      1. Eric Newland profile image60
        Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with the fallacy insofar as it's fallacious for Christians to claim to know with certainty something that our own faith teaches us that only God can know. We can only make our best educated guesses about matters of the heart based on what we see.

        If I see a serial killer I would still say he's probably not a real Christian based on his actions. But I can't know for certain what remorse he feels or how genuine it is, nor of he is even enough in his right mind to be aware of the gravity of his actions and thus take responsibility for them.

        Christians have a problem in that anyone can claim to be a member of the group but the proof is, technically, unobservable. So we have to either take people at their word, judge them by their actions, or selectively pick based on the situation, and no method is guaranteed accurate.

        I'm not sure what a good analogy would be for that, but I'd be interested to see one.

    3. 59
      ScepticFaithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Good Point

  10. MickeySr profile image88
    MickeySrposted 4 years ago

    The  "No true Scotsman" fallacy:

    Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
    Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
    Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

    When attaching this logic/argument to the Christian assertion that if you identify yourself to be a Christian and then act in an unchristian manner that your claim is then reasonably suspect, don't we understand the logic/argument of "No true Scotsman" to be asserting that a 'true' Scotsman is not merely a man who happens to have been born in Scotland and/or of Scottish parents, but that a 'true' Scotsman is one who fully partakes and invests in all things Scottish? 'Alice's' point may not be factually, genetically sound, but her point is referencing a trueness based not on genealogy but on conduct . . . a Scotsman who doesn't like haggis might be a Scotsman, barely, but a 'true' Scotsman, a fully Scot-like Scotsman, will like haggis.

    Remember this; there were no Jews until God called Abram to separate himself and starting with (now) Abraham his progeny are God's chosen people, the Jews. But - in the NT it is revealed that those who are God's true chosen people, His true children, are not those who merely happen to have been born of the bloodline of Abraham, but those who follow after the faith of Abraham . . . the logic/argument goes like this ~     

    Alice: All who have the faith of Abraham are his descendants and God's children.
    Bob: My uncle is a descendant of Abraham, both his parents were Jewish.
    Alice: Well, all TRUE descendant of Abraham are those who have the faith of Abraham.

    But here's the real issue, the point that makes all of this debate a bit inconsequential; Christianity is not about being good or bad, Christians are not good and non-Christians bad . . . Christianity simply is not about following our specific moral code over some other religion's (or secular society's) moral code, it just is not a matter of doing all the right Christian things and not doping all the wrong Christina things, etc. Some have turned Jesus' (and the Bible's) message into merely another religion, so that if you go to one of our churches, live by our rules, practice our rituals, etc, then you are a Christian - and then, as this "No true Scotsman" logic/argument addresses, you start deciphering who the 'real' Christians are by exactly which church they go to and how often they go, how flawlessly they obey the rules, and what form they practice the rituals in, etc.

    The whole point of Christianity, the whole point of the Bible's revelation, the whole point of Jesus' message is just the opposite of all that crap - Jesus' message was that there is no church you can go to, no rules you can follow, and no rituals you can perform that amount to anything before God . . . Jesus' message is that we all stand hopeless. Christianity is not about who is good and who is bad - Christianity is about pointing to a historic event, it's about announcing the truth and purpose of that event . . . Christians are not to be religious people trying to be really really good - Christians are to be reporters, knowing the truth of Jesus' incarnation and atonement and proclaiming it to the world. It's simply not about being good instead of bad - it's about something that happened, not about something we do or don't do but something that God did.

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The no true scotsman fallacy is just a word game spoken awkwardly and is quite deceptive until you see behind its veil.

      In the case of haggis, haggis does not ask you to change your life for the better.
      In the case of christianity, change of lifestyle is definitely called for.
      In the case of christians being real or not - change has to occur - not with haggis. You see there are no visible signs in the life that haggis has done to a person, but in christianity there are signposts along the way as to the degree of change and one of those changes would be serial killing.

      In the case you describe:
      Alice: All who have the faith of Abraham are his descendants and God's children.
      Bob: My uncle is a descendant of Abraham, both his parents were Jewish.
      Alice: Well, all TRUE descendant of Abraham are those who have the faith of Abraham.

      we can now print:
      Alice: All christians are changed by God.
      Bob: My uncle is a christian and he is a serial killer.
      Alice: Well, all true christians are changed by God and are certainly not serial killers.
      And this is perfectly acceptable.

      1. 59
        ScepticFaithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Awesome. Like It

  11. hhatraining profile image60
    hhatrainingposted 4 years ago

    Thread topic is kind of a no true scotsman argument in my mind.

    I understand the sentiment, but this attitude does not get us anywhere.

    All of the muslims blowing people up are not true muslims. Ok. So what are they? Fake muslims?

    It becomes difficult in my estimation.

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately muslims who kill and blow things up are real muslims because this is what their doctrine includes as a 'work based' religion they feel they must 'help' allah get his job done - so Jihad is appropriate.

      Since there is a cursed and diabolical belief in reincarnation this also helps jihad inclined people, kill themselves and others while they think, "they may have a better life - next time round."

      The not true muslim would believe in Jesus Christ and seek ways of peace.

  12. 0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    Ladies, ladies. You can certainly agree. Unfortunately it doesn't make your statements make sense. Although, consensus does have a tendency to make you feel good. So, at least you have that. smile

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It is good to know the Truth and to agree with others who do, yes.
      It's not just a feel-good thing.

      smile

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        smile I'm not going to argue the point Brenda. We've posted back and forth enough to know where each of us stand. Cosmic truth is always  in line with what each of us wants to believe.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          -error-  Truth has absolutely nothing to do with belief or personal perception.  It is what is.  It is reality, and thus independent of belief of any kind.

          Belief is just that - belief - and while it may be truth it can also be false.  The believer does not know which (truth or falsehood) their belief is.  Their personal perception of the cosmic truth serves as truth only to themselves, while reality (truth) is the same for everyone.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ok. I have no problem with your correction. But, it is difficult to argue that point with those who think they have the only truth.

            1. aguasilver profile image88
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Especially if there exists the possibility/probability that that truth may be THE truth.

              1. MickeySr profile image88
                MickeySrposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                aguasilver ~ I don't agree, explicitly, agree that "truth has absolutely nothing to do with belief" . . . I understand your point, and I do agree when you say "belief is just that - belief - and while it may be truth it can also be false.  The believer does not know which". But when you say that truth has "absolutely nothing" to do with belief, that seems to suggest that what a person believes is merely fanciful and not based on any reason or evidence. Don't you believe what you believe because you believe it is the truth?

                I don't believe the Bible to be the authoritative revealed word of God, that Jesus is man's only hope, etc,etc, because such an idea appeals to me and I would really like it to be the truth, nor do I believe it because i was raised to believe it, etc - I believe it  because I think it makes the most sense and is validated by all the evidence I've examined, etc. In other words, what I believe is what I believe to be the truth . . . my 'belief', while not interchangeable with 'truth', does not have "absolutely nothing" to do with truth (as in mere non-informed conjuncture) but is what i believe based on my consideration of what is true.

                1. aguasilver profile image88
                  aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I think you were confusing me with Emile, I agree with you! smile

                  1. MickeySr profile image88
                    MickeySrposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    . . . nope - I believe I was confusing you  both with wilderness, and that's the truth.

              2. 0
                Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know much, but I'm pretty sure what you've got is not the truth.

                1. aguasilver profile image88
                  aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If you were 100% sure I would feel better about it, for your sake.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I was attempting to be polite. Let me clarify. I am 100% sure you are blowing smoke out your ear. There is nothing of substance in your words. sad

  13. peeples profile image90
    peeplesposted 4 years ago

    According to the Christian bible all sin is equal in God's eyes. Since Christians believe that christ died for their sins and all Christians sin, a serial killer can still be a Christian and according to their bible he can be accepted into heaven if before he dies comes to terms with what he did and asks for forgivness. This is just another reason I am atheist!

  14. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    I believe that some who believe themselves to be saved, are not. The number could be quite high. There are some who say they are christians and know that they themselves are lying. That number also may be quite high. Jesus said that everyone would be wandering after the beast. Everyone.

  15. brandonakelly profile image60
    brandonakellyposted 4 years ago

    Every person, believer or non-believer, is capable of good and bad; we're all human beings. Even the most devout Christian can have personality setbacks due to trauma that happens in their lives; which can lead to some very bad decisions. You also have your non-believers who have good morals who are capable of living in a Christian "like" image; but are not TRUE believers.

  16. vector7 profile image60
    vector7posted 4 years ago

    Second that..

  17. Christinme profile image61
    Christinmeposted 4 years ago

    There are those Christians who are merely religious souls who proclaim salvation with their mouth only, and there are Spirit filled Christians who proclaim their salvation with their mouths and hearts, REPENTING of their sin and welcoming Christ and the Holy spirit to live in them and wash their sin away. If a cold blooded murderer confesses to be a Christian I fear they are just a religious soul because if they KNEW their saviour and he indewlt in them, the Holy Spirit would convict them of their wrongdoings.

    I feel that the word "belief" is too wishy washy for God. God wants us to KNOW Him. Do you know Jesus or merely believe. ?

  18. Shikinah profile image60
    Shikinahposted 4 years ago

    When Jesus walked the earth he came across many demon possessed individuals, which he healed.
    To day we have similar situations arising where fallen angels once again want to inhabit the body of human beings. And sad to say those Christians who dabble with the occult willingly or unknowingly may open the gates to wicked spirits. If these individuals attend church who is to know just by looking if this person has the ability to murder on a mass scale. How many times have you heard a killer say that a "voice told me to do it". That's why the bible warns us against such practices, because once you attract a wicked spirit entity it can be extremely difficult to remove. Yes a Christian can be a serial killer if opens himself up to spiritism or the occult which the bible warns us against.

  19. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago

    @ Chris Neal - I read both of those last two responses to me and I must admit they were pretty good.

    1. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you, that means a lot.

 
working