God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
but why should anyone (except some kind of nutter) think that sacrificing a son is proof of love?
-- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
When we transcribed the alien script we found that Frederick Williams had written:
> but why should anyone (except some kind of nutter) think that > sacrificing a son is proof of love?
Well, allowing your son to fly a spitfire during WW2 might be a reasonable place to start.
-- I am Robert Billing, Christian, author, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover. "It burned me from within. It quickened; I was with book as a woman is with child." Quality e-books for portable readers: http://www.alex-library.com
In message <4AF444B7.5E612...@tesco.net> Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...@tesco.net> wrote:
> but why should anyone (except some kind of nutter) think that > sacrificing a son is proof of love?
When that lighthouse keeper up on the north-east coast of England saw a ship on the rocks, he loved the people on board so much that he included his only daughter in the crew of the boat that set out to rescue them.
Fortunately, in that case Grace Darling survived the ordeal, but if she had been swept overboard and drowned, wouldn't that make that pathos of the story even greater?
> God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, > that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, > but have everlasting life.
> but why should anyone (except some kind of nutter) think that > sacrificing a son is proof of love?
Surely to sacrifice ones own Son is proof of a kind of love that we can only dream about. Especially since the Son in question freely gave His Life. In both instances this is proof of a kind of love that is totally beyond our comprehension.
> "Frederick Williams" <frederick.willia...@tesco.net> wrote in message > news:4AF444B7.5E6125AF@tesco.net... > > Even a heathen such as myself knows
> > God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, > > that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, > > but have everlasting life.
> > but why should anyone (except some kind of nutter) think that > > sacrificing a son is proof of love?
> Surely to sacrifice ones own Son is proof of a kind of love that we can only > dream about. Especially since the Son in question freely gave His Life. In > both instances this is proof of a kind of love that is totally beyond our > comprehension.
To sacrifice oneself might be.
If God's sacrifice of his Son is beyond our comprehension it seems pointless as well as cruel (and therefore a good representation of Christianity as a whole).
-- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
Frederick Williams wrote: > Hermeneutika wrote: >> Surely to sacrifice ones own Son is proof of a kind of love that we can only >> dream about. Especially since the Son in question freely gave His Life. In >> both instances this is proof of a kind of love that is totally beyond our >> comprehension.
> To sacrifice oneself might be.
> If God's sacrifice of his Son is beyond our comprehension it seems > pointless as well as cruel (and therefore a good representation of > Christianity as a whole).
H did not say that the sacrifice is beyond our comprehension, but that it showed a love that is beyond our comprehension - and that is quite different.
If Christian theology is right, and the Son is of one "substance" with the Father, then to sacrifice one's Son *is* to sacrifice one's self. And while ever sin and suffering last, so does the sacrifice last - even though its earthly expression was once and for all.
--
Revd. Eric Potts
"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
> Frederick Williams wrote: > > Hermeneutika wrote: > >> Surely to sacrifice ones own Son is proof of a kind of love that we can only > >> dream about. Especially since the Son in question freely gave His Life. In > >> both instances this is proof of a kind of love that is totally beyond our > >> comprehension.
> > To sacrifice oneself might be.
> > If God's sacrifice of his Son is beyond our comprehension it seems > > pointless as well as cruel (and therefore a good representation of > > Christianity as a whole).
> H did not say that the sacrifice is beyond our comprehension, but that > it showed a love that is beyond our comprehension - and that is quite > different.
You're right! My apologies to H. I suppose if one posts something one should at least read the replies.
> If Christian theology is right, and the Son is of one "substance" with > the Father, then to sacrifice one's Son *is* to sacrifice one's self.
But in that case the sacrificed "entity" lives and there has been no sacrifice.
> And while ever sin and suffering last, so does the sacrifice last - even > though its earthly expression was once and for all.
And the point of it was... what?
-- Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile / Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god / Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
>> "Frederick Williams" <frederick.willia...@tesco.net> wrote in message >> news:4AF444B7.5E6125AF@tesco.net... >> > Even a heathen such as myself knows
>> > God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, >> > that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, >> > but have everlasting life.
>> > but why should anyone (except some kind of nutter) think that >> > sacrificing a son is proof of love?
>> Surely to sacrifice ones own Son is proof of a kind of love that we can >> only >> dream about. Especially since the Son in question freely gave His Life. >> In >> both instances this is proof of a kind of love that is totally beyond our >> comprehension.
> To sacrifice oneself might be.
> If God's sacrifice of his Son is beyond our comprehension it seems > pointless as well as cruel (and therefore a good representation of > Christianity as a whole).
Well you are entitled to your opinion. But even today it is regarded as a good and noble thing to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of ones comrades or for the innocent. Take a look at any memorial service today and you will hear lots of talk about sacrifice. And this from a secular kulture.
I would also take issue with you about Christianity being pointless and cruel. At its best Christianity has made a massive contribution to Western civilisation, and was never pointless and cruel. The pointless and cruel things that were done in her name was never Christianity at all.
>>> "Frederick Williams" <frederick.willia...@tesco.net> wrote in message >>> news:4AF444B7.5E6125AF@tesco.net... >>> > Even a heathen such as myself knows
>>> > God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, >>> > that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, >>> > but have everlasting life.
>>> > but why should anyone (except some kind of nutter) think that >>> > sacrificing a son is proof of love?
>>> Surely to sacrifice ones own Son is proof of a kind of love that we >>>can only >>> dream about. Especially since the Son in question freely gave His >>>Life. In >>> both instances this is proof of a kind of love that is totally beyond our >>> comprehension.
>> To sacrifice oneself might be.
>> If God's sacrifice of his Son is beyond our comprehension it seems >> pointless as well as cruel (and therefore a good representation of >> Christianity as a whole).
>Well you are entitled to your opinion. But even today it is regarded as >a good and noble thing to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of ones >comrades or for the innocent. Take a look at any memorial service today >and you will hear lots of talk about sacrifice. And this from a secular >kulture.
>I would also take issue with you about Christianity being pointless and >cruel. At its best Christianity has made a massive contribution to >Western civilisation, and was never pointless and cruel. The pointless >and cruel things that were done in her name was never Christianity at >all.
Well said, Michael.
Mike -- Michael J Davis <>< "All that is not eternal is eternally out of date." (CSL) <><
If you want to argue like that, then you also need to recognise that there is no such single thing as "Christianity", but that there are many beliefs, related but not identical, that come under that name.
--
Revd. Eric Potts
"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
> If you want to argue like that, then you also need to recognise that > there is no such single thing as "Christianity", but that there are many > beliefs, related but not identical, that come under that name.
Oh right, I suppose you want to dissociate yourself from everything the Catholics did in the same way the East Germans dissociated themselves from the Nazis.
Well i take your point......it does indeed look and sound like the "no true Scotishman" arguement.......but i would of course claim that while their may be similarities....a exact fit is not possible. The point here being made is that the person making the NTS arguement is in actual fact in denial about the fact that indeed a Scotsman would, alas do such things. But a true Christian is a differnet breed from a Scotsman. And herein lies your logical confusion. Your are confusing the genus true scotsman with the genus true Christian.....the two are not exact copies of the same logical type. Hence the logick chain will not hold as the presuppositions for true Scotsmen and true Christians are different and hence there will be a different logical outcome!!!
Hehehe, it's hardly up to me to say who is and isn't a Christian!
Christians have a certain belief in Jesus, I suppose, like he is the best and wisest of men, the Son of God and should be worshipped etc. If you follow Robert Price (who is a former Baptist pastor and has doctorates in dogmatic theology and in New Testament studies and so knows a thing or two about Christianity), it is belief in the Atonement that makes you a Christian.
All Christians are true Christians unless they only pretend to believe, in which case they are false Christians. There are possibly fewer false Christians around than there used to be, owing to our society becoming more secular, but it is still unwise to try to become President of the United States without openly professing Christian belief.
>> If you want to argue like that, then you also need to recognise that >> there is no such single thing as "Christianity", but that there are >> many beliefs, related but not identical, that come under that name.
> Oh right, I suppose you want to dissociate yourself from everything the > Catholics did in the same way the East Germans dissociated themselves > from the Nazis.
That seems to me to be a singularly silly thing to say.
My point is that there are many varieties of Christianity; some of them may claim to be the only true one; others, including mine, do not. As far as possible I try, and I think very many Christians try, to accept all who seek to follow Christ as Christian sisters and brothers, even where I/we find some of their specific doctrines or practices unacceptable. Thus I may well recognise a Mormon as Christian, while at the same time deny that his "church" can properly be described as Christian.
Roman Catholics are certainly counted among my Christian siblings. But that does not mean that I have to accept as valid or "Christian" everything and anything that they do or have done.
Why is it, can you tell me, that so many atheists want to lump all Christian people, all Christian actions, all Christian ideas, into the one heap, such that they/you so often fail in the most simple task of differentiation? I suspect it is just laziness, or the very cheapest of debating tactics. You know: "Hitler was a Christian; therefore Christians are evil." It's a false logic, even if the first premise was correct (which is isn't, btw.) But what the heck, it's always good for a few atheistic brownie points.
--
Revd. Eric Potts
"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
> Hence the logick chain will not hold as the > presuppositions for true Scotsmen and true Christians are different and > hence there will be a different logical outcome!!!
Frederick Williams wrote: > You're right! My apologies to H. I suppose if one posts something one > should at least read the replies.
It's usually a good idea.... :-)
(Me)
>> If Christian theology is right, and the Son is of one "substance" with >> the Father, then to sacrifice one's Son *is* to sacrifice one's self. (Fred) > But in that case the sacrificed "entity" lives and there has been no > sacrifice.
The answer to that lies in my subsequent comment, namely:
>> And while ever sin and suffering last, so does the sacrifice last - even >> though its earthly expression was once and for all.
To which Fred asked:
> And the point of it was... what?
The point is that God accepts full responsibility for sin and suffering and, contrary to some Christian ideas, does not blame or punish us for it.
--
Revd. Eric Potts
"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
Alwyn wrote: > Hehehe, it's hardly up to me to say who is and isn't a Christian!
> Christians have a certain belief in Jesus, I suppose, like he is the > best and wisest of men, the Son of God and should be worshipped etc. If > you follow Robert Price (who is a former Baptist pastor and has > doctorates in dogmatic theology and in New Testament studies and so > knows a thing or two about Christianity), it is belief in the Atonement > that makes you a Christian.
Well, I don't follow Robert Price. Otherwise your general "definition" above is not unreasonable. If pressed, and I prefer not to be, I would say that a Christian is someone who can honestly say "Jesus is Lord", although I recognise that there are different understandings of the term "Lord".
> All Christians are true Christians unless they only pretend to believe, > in which case they are false Christians.
I agree. But that does not mean that every action they carry out can be described as Christian. They/we are all sinners after all.
--
Revd. Eric Potts
"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:04:10 GMT, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote: >John R (Ripon43) wrote:
>> What, in your opinion, makes a true christian?
>Hehehe, it's hardly up to me to say who is and isn't a Christian!
Badly worded! What I meant was, what would prompt you to say, he's a true christian, rather than seeing the actions of a "christian" and using it as a reason to avoid christianity.
Given your non belief the answer may well be nothing makes a true christian :-)
>Christians have a certain belief in Jesus, I suppose, like he is the >best and wisest of men, the Son of God and should be worshipped etc.
No, i don't think thats it, although of course we believe he is the son of God, and we worship him on that basis.
When I reply to your other post I will try and explain why, but I am having difficulty putting it in to words.
>If you follow Robert Price (who is a former Baptist pastor and has >doctorates in dogmatic theology and in New Testament studies and so >knows a thing or two about Christianity), it is belief in the Atonement >that makes you a Christian.
I started reading that last night but I had distractions so didn't get very far. Will try again tonight when the family has gone to bed. I will also hopefully respond to your other post.
Personally I think a christian is someone who has been changed inwardly. Not by their own efforts, but God working through them. Yes, the atonement is part of it, but not all of it.
>All Christians are true Christians unless they only pretend to believe, >in which case they are false Christians. There are possibly fewer false >Christians around than there used to be, owing to our society becoming >more secular, but it is still unwise to try to become President of the >United States without openly professing Christian belief.
Thats true, but it also means that christianity is still alive and kicking, and growing in certain places. China is a good example.
60/70 years ago it was the done thing to be a sunday christian. Now, nornally one becomes a christian after having had a life changing encounter with Jesus (that was true in my case anyway)
> Badly worded! What I meant was, what would prompt you to say, he's a > true christian, rather than seeing the actions of a "christian" and > using it as a reason to avoid christianity.
If I were to say that, 'Christian' would be a metaphor for someone I thought was morally admirable. It wouldn't have the original meaning of someone who believes in Jesus.
Bertrand Russell once got into hot water because he said that more Christian love was needed in the world. Many people, both Christian and non-Christian, assumed that he had embraced Christianity, but that was not the case. Russell thought highly of some of the teachings of Jesus but rejected Christian theology.
> Given your non belief the answer may well be nothing makes a true > christian :-)
As I said, I might use the term metaphorically.
<snip>
> Personally I think a christian is someone who has been changed > inwardly. Not by their own efforts, but God working through them. > Yes, the atonement is part of it, but not all of it.
I've no problem with that, as long as you don't maintain that you need to have experienced a conversion in order to be a Christian. My father grew up in the faith, and I have little reason to believe he ever had a conversion in the Evangelical sense. As I remember him, he was a caring pastor, a worthy priest and a loving father, a true credit to his Christian faith. That does not, of course, mean that I don't think he was deluded.
<snip>
> 60/70 years ago it was the done thing to be a sunday christian. Now, > nornally one becomes a christian after having had a life changing > encounter with Jesus (that was true in my case anyway)
I respectfully submit that most Christians today, as in the past, grew up in the faith. People who have had dramatic conversions are an exception, but we hear more about them than we do about the other people.
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:04:10 GMT, Alwyn put finger to keyboard and typed:
>John R (Ripon43) wrote:
>> What, in your opinion, makes a true christian?
>Hehehe, it's hardly up to me to say who is and isn't a Christian!
That's true, but a corollary of that is that you're not really in a position to say that Michael "Hermeneutika"'s comment about true Christians is an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy. The fact is that Christians do themselves disagree on what constitutes a true Christian, and it's not at all unreasonable for some of them to define Christianity in such a way that those who commit certain acts are outside it.
>All Christians are true Christians unless they only pretend to believe, >in which case they are false Christians.
And that's the fallacy of the excluded middle :-) It's perfectly possible to honestly, but mistakenly, believe oneself to be a Christian. How common such people are is a matter of debate; some Christians (and churches) are more inclined to place people into it than others. But even if the number is very small, it almost certainly exists.
In message <4AF568BE.B042E...@tesco.net> Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...@tesco.net> wrote:
> If God's sacrifice of his Son is beyond our comprehension it seems > pointless as well as cruel (and therefore a good representation of > Christianity as a whole).
Clearly years of participation in uk.r.c have not stopped Fred spouting rubbish. We must be failing somewhere.
Mark Goodge wrote: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:04:10 GMT, Alwyn put finger to keyboard and > typed:
>> John R (Ripon43) wrote: >>> What, in your opinion, makes a true christian? >> Hehehe, it's hardly up to me to say who is and isn't a Christian!
> That's true, but a corollary of that is that you're not really in a > position to say that Michael "Hermeneutika"'s comment about true > Christians is an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy. The fact is > that Christians do themselves disagree on what constitutes a true > Christian, and it's not at all unreasonable for some of them to define > Christianity in such a way that those who commit certain acts are > outside it.
It seens to me that you and Hermie are arguing the same way: that although there may be some validity to the No True Scotsman critique, it does not apply to Christianity. Yet I'm pretty sure that Flew had religion in mind when he wrote about it. As Rational Wiki has it:
'With respect to religion, the fallacy is well used, often even overused. Religious apologists will repeatedly try to use the No True Scotsman argument to distance themselves from more extreme or fundamentalist groups but this does not prevent such extremists actually being religious - they themselves would certainly argue otherwise. Moderate Muslim leaders, for example, are well known for declaring Islamic extremists as "not true Muslims" as Islam is a religion of peace. Similarly, moderate Christians, such as those in Europe, sometimes aghast when viewing their right-wing counterparts in the US, immediately declaring them "not true Christians", even though they believe in the same God and get their knowledge of it from the same book. Occasionally atheists can be guilty of the fallacy, such as someone hypothetically exclaiming that "true atheists" don't believe in ghosts or UFOs when such disbeliefs actually have nothing to do with an atheistic philosophy (although they can be linked by concepts of observational evidence and rationalism).
'A modern example may be found at the would-be Conservative encyclopedia, Conservapedia. The founder of the site, Andrew Schlafly, has repeatedly used this fallacy to defend his personal concept that Conservatives, by definition apparently, do not practice deceit, at all, ever, no way. When confronted with examples of deceit on the part of Conservatives, he routinely disavows that these individuals are Conservatives at all, on the basis that Conservatives do not practice deceit.[1] He instead assigns them to the group liberal, regardless of evidence to the contrary - indeed Schlafly has a tendency to shoehorn anyone into the category of "liberal" unless they conform with an increasingly strict set of criteria. The use of this fallacy is underlined by the fact that prior to revelations of deceit, the same individuals would have been hailed as good Conservatives.'
The definition of 'who is Conservative [sic]' seems to be just as contentious as 'who is Christian' amd so is open to the same debate.
|
