Can a Conservative Extremist be a PRACTICING Christian?

[AnArmyVeteran]

Poll question: Can a Conservative Extremist be a PRACTICING Christian?

Conservative extremists are always against helping the poor, the sick, the vulnerable and the hungry. They profess to be followers of Jesus, but they condemn everything Jesus stood for. I'd like to know other people's positions on this. I don't think you can be a practicing Christian and a conservative extremist who turns your back on your fellow man. Conservatives are against all social programs which help others in need. They are against all spending for any kind of aid. They are even opposed to social security and if that program ended it would put almost every senior out on the streets begging for food and living in cardboard boxes. So how cold a conservative extremist be a practicing Christian. Do you believe it is possible?

Example: The conservatives in congress just blocked an unemployment extension for people who are in great need. These same conservatives eagerly started two unfunded wars, gave huge tax breaks to the wealthy and destroyed our economy, all of which hurt the most vulnerable in our society. Just about all conservative extremists profess to be Christians, but how can they make that claim when they have zero regard for their fellow man? I truly believe they would condemn the Good Samaritan for giving aid to a naked and beaten man on the side of the road because he didn't charge the man for helping him. In fact, the Good Samaritan even gave the man money for food and clothing without wanting anything in return. That kind of behavior is the exact opposite of how conservatives think or believe. Conservative extremists condemn everything taught in the Bible about helping one's fellow man.

So do you believe a conservative extremist can be a practicing Christian?

[ZombieHorde]

1. I voted other because I believe a conservative can be perfect at both.

Like all Christians, they will choose which parts of the Bible are true, which parts are metaphor, and which parts to outright ignore.

[darkstar3]

9. Same here.

[AnArmyVeteran]

54. Just like they like to take just the parts of Constitution that suits them.

They pick and choose just what parts they want to hear and disregard the rest in both the Bible and the Constitution. But in both instances they hold the poor in contempt and despise the fact that one dollar of theirs goes to help any other human being. But they love war, killing and destruction. And they worship capitalism much more than they do the Bible or the Constitution.

[UTUSN]

2. Proud to click "no" #7, 54% n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. I chose yes.

The Republican party was hijacked by the anti-choice movement and by in large are Low Information, Single Issue Voters who buy into voting against their own interests based on the Choice stance of the politician in question.

To many, this issue trumps all.

I am not defending it - just explaining from my own bizarre experiences and relationships. 90% of 'evangelicals' in my world agree with me to the letter on Dem platforms but vote the big (R) over lip-service to legalization of abortion.

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. Delete - Dupe

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Voted other. The question is far too narrow.

I don't think it is possible to be a politician and be an actual practicing Christian. This is one of my basic problems with all of the religious posturing in politics. It is a joke. Let's take what politicians call 'spin'. Jesus called that 'sin'. He went on at length about how bad it is to do. At length. Did he mention gay people even once? No. But, he did command that his followers never ever pray in public, like the hypocrites do. Like Rick Warren did. He also forbade the swearing of any oath, saying one's yes should mean yes, and no mean no. Anything more, he said 'comes from evil'. So right after Ricky's public prayer, Obama swore an oath before God (specifically forbidden). It goes on like this. The idea that they practice anything is absurd. And the fact that they don't is important, because they use the faith like a bludgeon against other people's rights.
Take the verses of Paul, the ones that Christians have to quote against gay people because Jesus himself failed them in that regard. Because of those verses, Obama bases his notion that some couples are 'sanctified' and others are not. But do he or his wife make even a gesture to living according to the many, many verses of Paul's that apply to such things as how women should behave, and dress? No. Does she refuse to speak in public, avoid costly array that draws attention to her beauty? You get my point here. They reject the bulk of it. Yet they hold on tight to these few verses that apply to other people, mind you, and elevate those to some high place, demand that other people follow them, so they can sit and watch, while breaking dozens of Paul's and the Christ's laws each day before noon themselves.
It is really a pitiful display. For the right or the left. It is a gross misuse off anything they claim to hold as sacred, to use it as a token for self promotion, like a tee shirt or a button.
So I said 'other'.

[Imajika]

6. I think your completely wrong...

Just because radical right conservatives oppose social programs does not necessarily mean they don't want to help the poor. Best I can tell, these people just believe local charities, churches and families should be the ones doing the helping. They don't really believe in a social safety net the way we do, but they are not necessarily against helping people.

Some of the most generous people I know are rabid wingnuts. Many of my extended family are like this actually. Some are the most obnoxious dittoheads, yet they tithe and donate still more to all sorts of causes. You gotta understand, these people just hate government. When it comes to whom you distrust more, business or government - they will always pick government. They'd vote for BP management over any Democrat and many Republicans too.

What they just won't see, for whatever reason, is that significant government intervention is the ONLY way to level the playing field to a reasonable level so much of the population isn't just run over by the upper and business classes. They do not understand that without an active government working to make sure as many people as possible have a stake in society, the very business atmosphere that allows them to make money and flourish will just disappear. Despite their ignorance though, I really don't think you can say Righties can't be practicing Christians anymore than they can say Lefties can't be practicing Christians (which ofcourse they wrongly do all the time).

[AnArmyVeteran]

57. Good post Imajika. But why do they support war over helping people?

Conservative extremists cheered on Bush's Iraq War even though it had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks, Iraq had no capacity to attack the US and there were no Al Qaeda members even in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant but at least he kept a balance in the Middle East and he also kept any insurgencies in check. But Bush and Christian conservatives went into a stupor to go to war against Iraq, and under King George five times as many Iraqis died than under Saddam's rule. Who is the bigger tyrant? Because of conservative Christians over 5,000 of our soldiers were killed and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis were killed. I wonder if conservative Christians would have been as eager to kill so many human beings if they were Christians instead of Muslims?

I understand your position but there are some things churches and charities are completely unable to do. And from my exposure to many different brands of churches there are usually 'catches' to their giving. I have dear friends who were leaders in a church for over 40 years and they worked almost all their off hours for the church, but when they fell on hard times the church turned their back on them leaving them out in the cold. They are staunch republicans but they are rethinking how churches work. I know there are a lot of good works coming from both charities and churches, but as I said, they can't handle any huge crisis and they can't provide a guaranteed safety net for people who fall on hard times.

What gets me are all the 'Christian' conservatives who eagerly lap from the government trough at the same time they are condemning helping others. What kind of Christian cheers on seeing 42,000 of their fellow Americans die every year because they can't get health care? Instead of having empathy toward them they instead hate those people and condemn them as being deadbeats, lazy or on drugs. Senator Hatch 'claims' to be a Christian but he wants to drug test the 14 million people who are on unemployment and if they fail for any reason they should be cut off and basically thrown on the streets. Jesus didn't put conditions on all of those people he healed and fed. But conservative Christians do. In almost every area they act just the opposite of what Jesus would do, according to the Bible, the book they supposedly read. Christians seem to spend 1 hour a week at a church service supposedly getting lessons about love, but then spend 30-40 hours the following week listening to messages of hate from right wing radio and Fox News. I wonder if Jesus would condone Christians who purposely filled their heads full of hatred, anger, racism and fear and lived their lives with all of those negative human traits instead of focusing on his teachings of love?

I have a lot of conservative friends who claim to be Christians and they all feel the same way. Yeah, they tithe and they go to their palace-like churches every week but every time I see a church costing millions of dollars it sickens me at the hypocrisy of it all. If they truly read the Bible they would know they don't need all of the glitz and gaudy surroundings to 'pray' in. Isn't being fixated on grandiose buildings similar to worshipping the golden calf? I thought true Christians are supposed to be more concerned with the unseen, rather than the enormously expensive temples and churches they build.

If I belonged to a church I wouldn't want my money squandered on gaudy things to lure in people. I'd rather have it go to people in need, not toward a $50,000 statue or a $3 million 300 foot cross to put beside a highway. I've always felt if they wanted to truly walk in Jesus' footsteps they would worship under a tree, but knowing that wouldn't be practicable due to weather, they could at least worship in plain square buildings without all of the glitz. And if it takes 'glitz' to get the people to attend a church service then what kind of Christians are they? They are more like those people who worshipped the golden calf.

You're right that significant government intervention is the only way to solve huge social problems. The government IS the only way we can level the playing field. But conservatives and conservative 'Christians' apparently believe in a dog-eat-dog world with the strong and powerful devouring the weak and vulnerable. There is nothing 'Christian' in their opposition to the government helping human beings. Notice how all of the same 'Christian' republican hypocrites who were condemning all government are now asking for federal government help to clean up their beaches? It's okay for them to deny help to anyone but themselves, yet another sign they are not practicing Christians. They are hypocrites.

A person can go through all of the motions of being a 'Christian' but if they oppose helping others regardless of the vehicle to do so they are not acting like Christians. They are acting out of selfishness and/or greed. And greed is one of the seven deadly sins.

[ironbark]

82. On a long and winding mountain road

my wife read to me from- ‘The Emerald City’? Cameos from the ‘Green Zone’ in Bagdad.

A well intentioned effort to keep me awake…but I wish she hadn’t…laughing at the absurdity, crying at the loss and waste…almost went over the edge three times.

I thought I had a broad grip on what was going on and going down…but the detail of the insanity was crushing.
The description of the three guys appointed to review Iraqi industry (all State owned under Saddam), to determine what could be salvaged/privatised and what was so looted it had to be abandoned. Some decisions had been ‘Simplified’…every police car and bus had been taken home by former drivers…so that’s all now ‘Privatised’ taxies and transport. But factories still stood and it had to be determined if they could be made viable and which ones. At this point a German from the UN arrived…he had been assigned the same privatization/viability task in East Germany when The Wall came down. The German had a team of eight thousand to review East German industry…when he asked the Green Zone trio how many had been assigned in Iraq they responded “Your looking at them”.
The UN guy stopped laughing when he realised they were serious, shook his head and told them “Don’t even bother trying”.

That country and it’s people have been fuckedover something horrid.

“…Christian conservatives went into a stupor to go to war against Iraq,…”

Are they Christians? I don’t know…I doubt it…there are days I doubt I could even extend the courtesy of ‘human’ let alone Christian.
I don’t even want to be in the same Gene pool with them.

But I’d like to take the consideration a step further ArmyVet….maybe even out into left field.

If ‘true’ Christianity is about a ‘spirit’….a giving, a generosity, a sensitivity, a preparedness to do for others, a living by the Golden Rule….Then I’d have to admit that, in my experience, the majority of people who display that spirit, do not identify as religious or don’t proclaim it.

The most ‘spiritual’ people I encounter (the ones who seem to me to act in a Christ like manner) are wounded or broken by life (drugs, ABI, mental illness, bad experience) and treat others with the utmost respect.

The paradox-
Those who think they are or have ‘got it’ (pick a faith/spirituality) and proclaim it…are more often than not light years from it.
Those who don’t think they are or don’t speak much/at all about it often exemplify spiritual principles.

Perhaps my perspective is jaundiced.
I worked in a Salvation Army Rehab Unit….lots of deeply compassionate support among/between the drug addled residents……not nearly so much from Salvation Army Major Fuckup and his obstensibly Christian staff ;-)

[ironbark]

79. Well said n/t

[KonaKane]

7. No. See graphic. (pic)

[Deep13]

96. And he introduced the concept of eternal punishment for the thought crime...

...of disagreeing with him. The cannonical gospels do not support the idea that all are equal before God. Many of his remarks and parables indicate a clear distinction between believers and damned nonbelievers.

BTW, the Pharisees were the liberal wing of the Jewish priesthood. The Sadducees were the conservatives.

[AnArmyVeteran]

109. Thank you for that awesome picture!

[liberal N proud]

8. Christian in name only

[darkstar3]

10. Those of you voting "no" should research the No True Scotsman fallacy,

and recognize the following: Christianity, in all its forms and denominations, has only one requirement in order to join, and that is belief in Christ.

[TexasObserver]

12. The author of the thread gave very specific conditions you have ignored.

He didn't say "Christians" did he?

He said extremist conservative Christian. You ignore two significant descriptors to launch your straw man battle. He also defined what he meant by "practicing."

[darkstar3]

13. It's still a fallacy.

No one gets to redefine Christian at will for their own rhetorical ends, not even by adding little adjectives like "practicing" in front of it.

[johnaries]

18. No True Scotsman doesn't apply. Jesus had very specific

teachings and set a specific example. "Christian" means "Christ-like". So in this case there is a specific standard.

[darkstar3]

22. Does it?

Does Christian REALLY mean "Christ-like"? For every person who thinks that, I can drudge up ten who think it means something else.

It's funny that, in the process of claiming a fallacy doesn't apply, you employ said fallacy.

[johnaries]

25. And if you found 10 people who thought "dog" meant "cat",

they would still be wrong.

Chris·tian (krschn)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

[darkstar3]

27. I'm going to refer you to #23 at this point,

and also state that your excerpt only serves to prove my point. You have chosen ONE (#3 in your pulled quote) of the many definitions of Christian to fixate on in order to defend the idea that some people who call themselves Christians really aren't. And yet, those people still fall under definition #1.

[johnaries]

38. You are missing the point. Notice that ALL of the definitions

refer to the teachings and examples of Christ. Christianity is NOT some arbitrary label that changes upon the whims of some. It is a clearly defined position based on written teachings.

To claim that you follow a certain set of teachings and do the opposite has a name - it's called "Hypocrisy".

This is not an example of "No True Scotsman" - it is an example of hypocrisy, plain and simply.

[Cleobulus]

52. So claim they are a bad Christian, don't say they aren't a Christian in the first place...

do you understand the difference?

[laconicsax]

76. That's flat-out wrong.

Let's look at the definition you provided and see which ones don't fit your premise:

Chris·tian(krschn)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

That's 3 of 7 that don't require one to be "Christ-like." Funny how two of those are the first definition for the adjective form and the first definition for the noun form. Both definitions require one thing, "professing belief in Jesus as Christ or [observing the Christian religion]"

Definition 4 for the adjective form is open to whatever personal definition of "Christian" a person has. By defining "Christian" to exclude those who meet definition #1 is the first step in the Scotsman fallacy.

You're wrong, just accept it and move on.

[TexasObserver]

28. Indeed. "Christian" means what we say it means, too.

This notion that only Christians can define the term Christian is absurd. We can all apply the definitions we accept. Non Christians tend to expect Christians to evidence some of the attributes which Jesus lauded, to practice some of the practices we saw that Jesus taught. When so many who profess to be "Christians" lack any of the qualities Jesus taught, it's fair to see them as Jesus did: wolves in sheep's clothing who have nothing to do with him or his teachings.

Most right wing GOP Christians lack any of the things we would expect to see in one who follows Jesus. War? Hatred? Death Penalty? Jingoism? These are of Jesus?!

[darkstar3]

29. And yet those people you so adamantly dislike fit definition #1, and are therefore Christian. n/t

[Cleobulus]

50. Since when have non-Christians expected anything from Christians...

that's any different from how they act? I certainly don't expect Christians to act any differently than myself, hell, unless someone identifies themselves as Christian, I wouldn't even know they are one.

[AnArmyVeteran]

58. Absolutely TexasObserver

And Jesus himself condemned all of those who touted their Christianity in public and called them hypocrites. I'm quite sure Jesus would use that identical word to describe conservative extremist 'Christians'. And have you noticed all of the right wing radio hosts claim to be Christians, but they make their livings by violating the 9th Commandment by "bearing false witness against their neighbors". Even though they blatantly lie their listeners lap up their every word as the gospel, without thought, without question and certainly without doing fact checks.

I could say I'm a brain surgeon, but that doesn't make it so. I would have to live the life by going to college and studying first. Then I would have to always be involved by always learning more and more. I couldn't just sit on the sidelines and 'say' I'm a brain surgeon. The same with 'Christians'. They can't merely 'say' they are 'Christians'. They have to live their lives in a manner Jesus would approve. But that's obviously not the case with conservative extremist 'Christians'.

I know one thing. If the rapture came tomorrow I would not want to spend an eternity with 'Christians' like conserative congress members, right wing radio hosts or 'Christian' preachers like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. Spending an eternity with them would be an absolute hell.

[laconicsax]

78. Have you ever drawn/painted a picture, or made a sculpture?

If so, you've broken the commandment to not make graven images. Does that mean that you aren't a Christian?

Exodus 20:4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Just in case there's any confusion about this commandment, it's repeated twice more in the Torah (Deuteronomy 4 and again in Deuteronomy 27), then reiterated and enforced in 2 Kings 18:

Deuteronomy 4
¹⁶Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, ¹⁷The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, ¹⁸The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:

¹⁹And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. ²⁰But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day. ²¹Furthermore the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, and sware that I should not go over Jordan, and that I should not go in unto that good land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance:

²²But I must die in this land, I must not go over Jordan: but ye shall go over, and possess that good land. ²³Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.

Edit: Fix HTML tag

Preface to 2 Kings 18: If you remember, in Numbers 21, God told Moses to make a brass serpent and put it on a staff. Here's what happens to that brazen image:

1Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. ²Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah.

³And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. ⁴He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

Moses made a brass serpent, and Hezekiah broke it in accordance with the commandment in Exodus 20.

If the hate-radio asshats aren't true Christians because they make their living by breaking the 9th commandment, then no professional artist or sculptor can be a true Christian because they make their living by breaking the 2nd/3rd (depending on your sect) commandment.

[AnArmyVeteran]

112. Ever wonder why God would have a book written so vague and full of holes?

Einstein said "Simplicity is genius". If that were true then God is a far from being a genius. No two people on earth can agree on everything in the Bible. There are over 2000 Christian church brands in the US because they each have a different interpretation of the Bible. If God is 'all-knowing' and 'always was and always will be' you would think he could have directed the writers of the Bible to write more coherently. But instead, it is filled with riddles, fables, secrecy and with such complexity no one can understand it. No two Biblical scholars can agree on everything in the Bible and they spend their entire lives studying it. I've read the Bible hundreds of times, and while there are a lot of good things contained in its pages, most of it are gray areas which can be interpreted in as many ways as there are people on the planet. That is not 'genius'. And when there are no agreements it leads to divisions between people. And divisions cause resentment, hatred and wars. I remember laughing at the annual souther Baptist convention because there used to be huge fights between the different groups all wanting more control and power. It was laughable to witness and make a mockery out of the 'god' they supposedly worshipping.

According to the Bible if you eat shellfish it's an abomination. There are a lot of other references to food, that if eaten, virtually makes one unfit to be admitted in the kingdom of heaven. There's also all the carnage and vengeance in the Bible that seem to the only thing conservatives read. They like wars, retaliation, killing and hating the poor. Equating Glenn Beck or any other right wing radio host who constantly violates the 9th Commandment to someone who paints a beautiful picture is ludicrous and the your quotes from the Bible only verify that no god directed man to write those words, men wrote them for their own selfish interests. And only men were allowed to write the Bible. Women were excluded. They were looked at as second class citizens and equated to oxen, manservants and asses. They were mere property to be coveted. The more fundamentalist a religion is (Muslim, Christian, Hindu) women are more subservient to men.

Why in all the history of creation would a god send his 'son' to Earth in a primitive time when only a handful of people could control the flow of information? Why didn't he at least wait until the printing press was invented, or maybe perhaps a camera or two to record Jesus' miracles? In the zillions and zillions of years God has been roaming the cosmos why did he pick about 1900 years before the invention of the camera, audio recording devices and other technologies that could have verified and made believers out of everyone? I know, you are thinking a person has to have 'faith'. But faith is not possible without doubt of such an existence of 'god'.

An interesting quote by Craig Fergeson on his 10 12 9 program:

"If you know about God, that he exists and you know what he wants and you KNEW all of this stuff, you don't need faith. Because faith is only for people who experience 'doubt', because if you have no doubt you have certainty, or in other words, 'pathology'. So in order for you to experience faith you must have doubt." How true his statements are. To have faith you MUST have doubt.

There have been many who took a leap of faith by one con man after another through history. Religion is one of the easiest ways to manipulate people or shake them down for whatever money they have. It is used to instill fear. And it is used to create hated.

I would personally like to see an end to religion and all of the conflict and division that it creates in the world. Muslims think Christians are going to hell. Christians think Muslims are going to hell. And on and on. Conservative Christian extremists would love to turn the United States into a theocracy where the Bible was used to determine law. If that ever happened our country would be controlled by one fanatic trying to out-fanatic each other until religion completely destroyed all freedoms and destroyed our country. Look at countries where religion dominates countries. They are the most backward places on earth. And the barbarism is rampant. But this is what conservatives must dream about. They would love to see a dog-eat-dog world where the rich and powerful could easily prey off of the weak and vulnerable.

[laconicsax]

118. That's a lot of words to dodge my question.

You take issue with professed Christians breaking the 9th commandment, yet you yourself may have broken the 2nd/3rd commandment (depending on the order your sect prefers) countless times and admire the work of others who make a living at it.

That, plain and simple, is hypocrisy. Hiding behind personal interpretation of which parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally and which figuratively only highlights the fact that no one agrees on those matters, rendering the argument your OP invalid--if no one agrees on which parts the of Bible are meant to be taken literally, then who are you to say that those who don't follow your favorites are any less 'Christian' in doing so?

[Cleobulus]

48. Using that as a definition, people who never heard of Jesus end up being Christian...

as long as they act in a "Christ-like" manner. That renders the word Christian meaningless as anything labeling a religion, you might as well just use the word "good" or "charitable" at least then it makes more sense.

[AnArmyVeteran]

114. Amen to that! And you don't need million dollar churches to be good or do what's right.

In cultures that never heard of religion they are usually very peaceful and people respect one another. Hawiians didn't even have a word for the word 'steal' before Christian missionaries invaded their land to 'save' them. They also had no shame for being naked until Christians taught them they were being sinful. They took an innocent culture and infected them with shame and guilt. How is that a positive influence on people?

The amount if damage done to societies by religions is unimaginable. Religion is a man made invention and is used as a way of controlling and manipulating people. If religion never existed people would have less to fight about. People who have never been exposed to any religion would still be good toward their fellow man.

No one has to belong to any religion to be 'good'.

[onager]

72. That's one of the funniest things I ever read.

:rofl:

No True Scotsman doesn't apply. Jesus had very specific teachings and set a specific example.

So "specific" that in 2000 years of exegesis, argument, and inquisition, no two Xian sects can agree on exactly what those teachings mean.

Things were a little smoother in the first millenium and a half, when Catholicism enjoyed a monopoly, often enforced by the State. The monopoly also applied to the Buy-bull, since everything was in Latin.

Then the Protestant reformers opened the scriptures - and Pandora's Box - up to EVERYBODY. Suddenly, anybody could read the Word o'Gawd and interpret it for themselves.

With the result that every reader thought Gawd was speaking directly to him. And he usually went off and started his own church right after thinking that.

Nice way to try and shut down debate, though. Good luck with that. I'm always entertained by a bunch of Xians trying to decide who are the REAL Xians, so knock yourself out. I'll go make some popcorn.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. They were arguing before the gospels were written; 'a millennium and a half' is far too generous

Christians have argued about:
whether non-Jews can be Christians
whether all Jewish laws should be followed
whether Jesus was a man, a god, an apparition etc.
whether Jesus was equal with the 'big' God
what the 'Holy Spirit' is
etc.
The frequency of excommunication of each other in early church history is astounding. It reads more like the script of a high school soap opera, with each clique loudly saying "we won't allow you to sit on our lunch table today". The major schism of the Catholic and Orthodox church was the result of several hundred years of jockeying for power.

[laconicsax]

75. Was Paul a Christian?

You know, the guy who actually started the religion. Some Paul's teachings are the opposite of what Jesus allegedly taught.

[TexasObserver]

21. No, it isn't. You have an opinion on the topic. It's not shared by many.

[darkstar3]

23. Research the fallacy.

Ad hoc redefinition of a term to meet your own rhetorical needs is the very definition of NTS, and of what this OP is trying to do. It has nothing to do with opinion, and that's the problem that so many who employ this fallacy have trouble getting around. You don't think "they" are Christian, and "they" don't think you are Christian, and you're both very wrong. Both sides are Christian. Jeffery Dahmer was a Christian just before he died. Most members of the KKK are Christians. Contrarywise, great heroes of American history were also Christian, like Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King. You can't claim the heroes and ignore the bastards, it doesn't work that way, which is why it's called "having your cake and eating it too."

[TexasObserver]

24. Repeating adamantly your point doesn't make it valid.

The thread author identified well the subset of individuals he wished to define and address.

Your refusal to accept that as valid is merely your personal choice, and nothing else.

[darkstar3]

26. As I said, opinion doesn't enter into it, even if it's my opinion.

The thread author identified well the subset of individuals he wished to define and address.
That right there should strike you as fallacious. That's the thing about fallacy: It's employment is not in the eye of the beholder. Just because one person cannot see that a fallacy has been employed in conversation does not make the original argument less fallacious.

ETA: Perhaps it would help if I provided a link to the fallacy itself: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/

[TexasObserver]

30. It is your opinion and only your opinion.

You can repeat yourself until the cows come home, but repetitious doesn't make it true. You have an opinion, and that opinion is that YOUR definition of "Christian" is the only one that is valid.

OPINION, NOT FACT. You have an opinion.

[darkstar3]

31. That is entirely false.

You have an opinion, and that opinion is that YOUR definition of "Christian" is the only one that is valid.
No, that would be the fallacious position espoused by the OP, and by you if you agree with them. You are the ones attempting to exclude people from your little group based on your own definitions, which you stated above (in #28) that you should be allowed to make up on the fly.

Read the link I posted and really think about how it applies to this phenomenon.

[TexasObserver]

32. Now you're deluding yourself.

The belief that you can decide what defines a Christian, even when others provide you dictionary definitions to the contrary, is delusion.

[darkstar3]

35. Who's delusional here?

A. I'm the one telling YOU that people don't have the right to simply redefine terms willy-nilly, and
B. The dictionary definition quoted above doesn't contradict me AT ALL. In fact, definition #1 proves the OPs entire point to be null and void. The people that he would like to define out of the Christian faith are still Christians under that definition and YOU can't change that.

[TexasObserver]

42. You, because you think you own the word and can define it.

You don't own it. You're just another person using it, and your definition is only one of the many definitions of the word.

[darkstar3]

63. You're the one, among others, attempting to use definitions to exclude people, not me.

Don't project your own failings and fallacious logic onto others, it's unbecoming.

[ironbark]

86. Oh Texas…..What you don’t understand is

that if I believe/claim I’m driving a BMW….then I’m driving a BMW.

You might think/perceive it’s a VW van…but that’s your problem.

It doesn’t matter that there might be some objective criteria to driving a BMW or being a Christian.
If I say I’m in one or say I am one….then, that’s it, I am.

“OPINION, NOT FACT. You have an opinion.” #30

No, no, no………… “opinion” is everything…. “opinion” is sacred.

;-)

Sarcasm mode off.
Good luck and all the best ;-)

[dmallind]

60. Dictionaries list usages, not just actual definitions. NT

[johnaries]

39. I know the NTS metaphor quite well, which is why I can say with

great confidence that it does not apply for the same reasons I pointed out earlier. Just because someone "claims" to be something doesn't mean they are.

And, BTW, I am not a Christian. I rejected it as a teenager. I just couldn't buy the whole "hell" thing. But I was raised as a Christian and I have read the Bible. If someone claims to be a Christian but doesn't follow Christian philosophy, they are a hypocrite and a liar - not a Christian.

[Cleobulus]

40. The problem is, who gets to decide what that Christian philosophy is?

Conservative Christians think those Christians who are neutral or for abortion rights, gay rights, public safety net, etc. are working against Christian Philosophy, who are you to tell them they are incorrect?

[darkstar3]

64. +1 n/t

[laconicsax]

84. Didn't you read his comment?

He gets to decide. He alone is the authority on who is and who isn't a Christian and what is and is not Christian philosophy.

[darkstar3]

65. Apparently not, for it is not primarily a metaphor, but a logical fallacy.

Further, from a definition posted earlier in this thread, all that is required for someone to BE a Christian is for them to claim Christianity. This is because it is impossible to claim with certainty that there is only one "Christian philosophy". Your post is absolutely no different than claiming Scotsmen who put sugar on their porridge aren't really Scotsmen.

Edit: missing word.

[Lilith Velkor]

34. No shit.

[darkstar3]

36. You would think so, and yet...n/t

[darkstar3]

66. For those of you repeatedly arguing, let me try a customized example.

Maybe then you will see the similarity between this line of thought and the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Again, for comparison, I present a link to the fallacy: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/

And now, an example in perfect line with this thread:

Meet Johnny. Johnny believes in the divinity of Jesus and that he has made Jesus his "personal lord and savior." Johnny prays daily, goes to church twice a week, and reads his Bible whenever he gets a chance. Johnny also happens to be a Teabagger, and therefore a conservative extremist.
In keeping with the style of the link above, I will present the following:

Claim made in the OP: No conservative extremists can be practicing Christians.
1): Johnny fits at least one definition of Christian, practices his faith, and is a conservative extremist
2): No true practicing Christian would ever be a conservative extremist.
Therefore
3): Johnny is not a true practicing Christian.
Therefore
4): Johnny is not a counterexample to the claim that no conservative extremists can be practicing Christians.

Perhaps the above customized example will help to illustrate why this entire thread is nothing but a No True Scotsman argument.

[laconicsax]

83. Stop making Christians acknowledge that there are shitheads in their religion!

If we're supposed to respect faith as 'comforting' or whatever, we need to respect the moderate Christians' desire to pretend that no bad people share their beliefs.

:rofl:

[struggle4progress]

89. Actually, I think a standard Christian view is that everyone is a shithead sometimes

[laconicsax]

98. Theory and practice sometimes differ. n/t

[struggle4progress]

99. Or even often differ. But, of course, that is expected by the traditional doctrine

of "original sin" so frequently scorned in this forum. The view that a human is "a gaping mouth of desires" considerably predates Christianity, but it continues to make sense in light of evolutionary theory, since one then recognizes multiple instinctual needs which must be sufficiently strong for the organism to survive. It is certainly hypocritical for one to object that another is-so-and-so or is-not-such-and-such when the one criticizing is-so-and-so or is-not-such-and-such, but perhaps it is not hypocritical to say "we should be so-and-so and not-such-and-such, but we cannot actually be so-and-so and not-such-and-such, and yet we must still try to be so-and-so and not-such-and-such." In fact, it is well known that many things are "easier said than done"

[laconicsax]

102. You mean the traditional doctrines of attainder and corruption of blood?

I can't imagine why anyone would see those as bad things, especially on an American political website. It's not like those concepts are demonstrably contrary to the principles this country was founded on...

Oh wait, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html">they are.

[struggle4progress]

105. No, I don't mean attainder and corruption of blood, but you know that:

my post was clear enough

[darkstar3]

107. For whom, Superman?

"Clear enough"...ta loco...

[laconicsax]

108. It was quite clear:

You wrote: "Or even often differ. But, of course, that is expected by the traditional doctrine of "original sin" so frequently scorned in this forum." before pivoting to hypocrisy.

Original sin is the ultimate attainder and corruption of blood since it isn't just limited to property and possessions. We're supposedly born in sin because of the actions of a mythical couple who didn't know right from wrong, and if we don't accept another mythical figure as our 'Savior,' we are likely to suffer an eternity of punishment for those actions.

The idea that a person is born already stained by the transgressions of their ancestors and must be acquitted of those crimes, lest they be punished, is absolutely un-American. We don't punish people for what their ancestors did. (The notion of infinite punishment for finite crimes is also un-American, but let's not get into that, shall we?)

[struggle4progress]

113. My #99 makes clear enough a view that perhaps "original sin" is simply the fact that we are all

born as bundles of strong instinctual desires that control us, frequently exceeding our conscious ability to choose our behavior rationally and often overriding our good intentions. In some sense, we inherit those desires from our ancestors, though our success or failure at disciplining ourselves is our own success or failure

I've clarified frequently enough in this forum that I'm not a Biblical literalist, so I'm not inclined to wander again into a yet another pointless argument with someone who wants to insist that I must actually believe there were two first people named Adam and Eve

[laconicsax]

115. Tying it to instinct doesn't make it any better, that's the point.

Simply changing the nature of "original sin" from a specific transgression to inherited instinct leaves the main idea unchanged--that punishment can be inherited.

Whether you believe in a literal account on Genesis or not, the plain matter is that Original Sin holds that we are guilty of crimes we didn't commit and need salvation to avoid a cruel and unusual punishment.

Let's say that the doctrine of Original Sin refers to our instincts. We are no longer born guilty of a mythical crime, but instead born guilty of being human, or more simply, we are guilty of being born.

How is that any better? The prescribed solution is the same--atone for something you couldn't help, or suffer an eternal punishment, whatever that may be.

Original Sin, combined with the Christian concepts of 'Salvation' and its afterlife is he idea that we can be punished for being born.

[struggle4progress]

117. Your approach to this subject is irremediably that of the Fundamentalists

I don't share their views so there's really no discussion possible here

[laconicsax]

119. I don't share their views either, so discussion is only impossible if you refuse to particpate.

Bow out if you like. I won't press you to explain how interpreting Original Sin as 'human instinct' makes it any less offensive than the "traditional doctrine" you brought up.

[Deep13]

97. agreed. nt

[raouldukelives]

11. Practice makes perfect?

It's a toughie. Can you be a Christian and also work in HR? Who would Jesus fire?

[Curmudgeoness]

14. Voted no, because just believing in Christ is not enough.

If you do not follow his teachings, you are not a Christian, you are just acting. Hell, I call myself a "Christian" and I am an atheist---but I believe in the teachings (at least the ones that I know). I screw with people's heads all the time with this, but I stick by it. You must believe and follow the philosophy or you are not a PRACTICING Christian.

[Cleobulus]

44. Uhm, you aren't a Christian, indeed, you render the term meaningless...

You are an atheist who thinks Jesus may be a cool guy, but honestly, that doesn't make you a Christian.

[Initech]

15. No. Conservative extremism + religious fundamentalism = Taliban.

[iris27]

16. To their personal definition of "practicing Christian", absolutely.

To the personal definitions of most Christians here, certainly not.

And the opposite also holds true. Most of the rank and file extreme right/Quiverful/etc. Christians scoff at any lefty politician who professes to be Christian, because said politicians' daily practices don't hold up to the Rambo Jesus, Protector of the Unborn and Fuck Everyone Else Who Isn't Rich ideal.

[Chulanowa]

17. Chistianity has terribly low standards for what is "acceptable"

And most Protestant faiths only require you to say "Jesus" here and there and you're good. Laziest religion in the damn world. Which is probably WHY so many conservatives buy into it.

Also... there's more to Christianity than Jesus; all that stuff before he comes on the scene still counts, this is why it's in the book to begin with. All the crazy shit Paul comes up with after Jesus bites it counts, too.

If you wanted to make a religion based only on what Jesus taught, it'd basically be a new invention

[Greyhound]

19. I like you, so I'm not going to respond.

[Ozymanithrax]

20. They can follow all the Christian rules and be as conservative extremist.

God, honest, loving Christians have been murdering people forabout 1600 years because their faith tells them that God wants them to.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. I'm gonna second the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

If someone can come up with some conclusive, linear, historical evidence that "Jesus" actually existed, much less had "teachings", I would find that interesting. Because honestly, the closer one looks, the more elusive any sort of actual, historical personage as "Jesus" becomes.

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/puzzle1.htm

I understand the intent of the OP; but really, a more concise way to phrase the intent of the question as I understand it would be to ask, "Can an irredeemably selfish bastard be selfless, altruistic and compassionate?"

[Vampire Knight]

90. That old canard?

Unbelievable. I can't believe how much I have to cite wishful thinking here. Because I'm sure many atheists would feel more comfortable if Jesus didn't actually exist. But when you get into conspiracy theories like this, you sound like a bunch of birthers. Does Obama's US birth certificate exist? I haven't seen any proof. Did Jesus live? I haven't seen any proof.

And I take offense to you automatically labeling all conservatives "irredeemably selfish bastard(s)". Shame on you.

[darkstar3]

91. Oh really?

You think that the decades or even centuries of scholarly debate surrounding the historicity of Jesus are the work of a bunch of people who are just like "birthers"? :eyes:

As for your last paragraph, if it can be called that, I have two things to say.
A) If you take offense to conservatives being raked over the coals, then maybe you're at the wrong site, and
B) I think "irredeemably selfish bastard" is a great description for the "fuck you, I've got mine" mentality that describes conservatism.

[Vampire Knight]

93. I do think so.

Just because the "Jesus birthers" have been at it longer does not inherently give them legitimacy.

I just get irritated with people who take such a one dimensional, hate-filled view of the opposition. You make our side look like a bunch of irrational, foaming-at-the-mouth radicals who have no place in civilized political discourse. You're embarassing. I'm all for obliterating the opposition's views to kingdom come, but I'm not going to go around tilting at some poorly drawn caricature.

[darkstar3]

94. You really need to research the question, then.

What gives the people who question Jesus' historicity legitimacy are the following facts:

1. Jesus' entire life is shrouded in myth, containing multiple supernatural occurrences for which we have no proof, and which stretch the boundaries of believable.
2. Jesus' entire life from birth to death appears to be a "new" twist on a very old story. The book "Hero with a Thousand Faces" illustrates this quite well. So does the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There."
3. There isn't a single verifiable historical record of the existence of Jesus.

So, what we have is an unbelievable story that repeats many of the same themes found in preceding literature and has no verifiable source documents at all. The story of Jesus, therefore, is on no firmer a footing than the story of Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill. This is no surprise to most Christians, who simply retort that Jesus isn't a matter of fact but a matter of faith, placing their argument for the veracity of their claims in the special pleading zone.

Now, as for tilting at poorly drawn caricatures, I think if you research the current platforms of statewide GOP parties across the US, you will easily find the "fuck you, I've got mine" mentality. You might start with the Texas GOP platform (pdf), which has that and 3 kinds of crazy all rolled into one.

[Vampire Knight]

100. Even if you don't believe in

the "supernatural occurrences", that doesn't automatically mean that the person Himself didn't exist. There are all sorts of myths surrounding all sorts of historical figures. We don't say that John Wesley didn't exist because he believed that he was saved from a fire by supernatural means. We don't say that the Egyptian pharaohs didn't exist because they believed themselves descendents of the gods. Vlad the Impaler was rumored to be a vampire, but just because there aren't real, pointy-teethed bloodsuckers doesn't mean that the man didn't exist. George Washington believed himself to be saved by divine providence when he survived having two horses shot out from under him. Mohammed and Joseph Smith said they received oracles from angels. Constantine believed that he had a holy vision that brought him victory. Are you telling me none of these people existed?

Any one story can be related to many others. In fact, it is not unusual for people to observe the parallels between their own lives and those of famous people from antiquity and then to model them after the same. In fact, evangelists often tried to harmonize their message with the local myths to facilitate acceptance of their message. This does not mean that the original message was a fabrication.

3. Absurd. Not worth the time.

You show me these platforms as if you think it should shame me. I don't see why. If I didn't disagree, I wouldn't be here. Now, even though I disagree, I'm not going to treat them like soulless nonhumans who have no place in human society, much less polite discourse. I'm sure many of them probably think we're Sodom and Gomorrah, Pol Pot, Herod, and Hannibal Lecter rolled into one over here, but I bet they don't go as far as you do.

[darkstar3]

101. None of those people

have had a religion built around them. It has never been claimed that any of them performed mutliple miracles or came back from the dead. And many of the people you cite have specific historical documents to back up the claim of their historical existence, including Washington, Wesley, Smith, Muhammed, Vlad and many of the pharoahs.

When one story so closely parallels others, when it so obviously borrows from the literary tools and tropes of the day, that in itself is not enough to discount the story, but it IS enough to suspect it and to require further proof, which hasn't been found.

And now I'm going to ask you to show me what I could possibly have said about the right that would be the equivalent of them thinking "we're Sodom and Gomorrah, Pol Pot, Herod, and Hannibal Lecter rolled into one over here", or worse, since you seem to think I'm going farther than even that. Calling them selfish, even sociopathically so, hardly seems harsh when compared to your chosen examples.

(I will also inform you that if you intend to defend people on the right from criticism, you might find more welcome at HuffPo. :))

[Blue For You]

37. Abrahamic religions have no problem with conservative extremists.

[SidDithers]

41. Absolutely...

Christians come in all stripes and flavours. From MLK to Pat Robertson, Eugene Robinson to Jerry Falwell, Desmond Tutu to Billy Graham. Some are assholes, some are wonderful human beings. But they're all practising Christians.

Sid

[Cleobulus]

43. Uhm, yes, because Jesus' beliefs and actions are up for interepretation...

Christianity isn't conservative or liberal, its neutral, and any Christian is a true Christian as long as they believe Jesus was Son of God, etc.

[TexasObserver]

46. That is not what Jesus said.

Jesus said that many would claim to embrace him and his teachings, but that he would look at them and say "depart from me, you workers of iniquity; I never knew you."

I'll believe what Jesus said over what those who brandish his name say.

The view that Christians have of Christians is only one view. The vast majority of world citizens are not Christians, and they get to define Christians, too. Even within Christendom, many parse among themselves. Mormons say they're Christians, but many conservative Christians do not consider Mormons Christians.

Ultimately, each person decides what a "Christian" is, and all of the prevailing definitions of Christian are appropriate, depending on the subgroup using it. To Muslims, Christians are far different than Christians see themselves. One rarely perceives his own religion as others perceive it.

[Cleobulus]

47. Its self identification, and nothing more...

as an atheist, I find it infinitely amusing how one Christian group tries to say another group of Christians aren't Christian because of something they say, do or believe that they don't agree with.

ON EDIT: Unless the person in question says something that is obviously not compatible with Christian beliefs, such as saying they are an Atheist. Such as a poster above.

[TexasObserver]

49. In your mind, only, not in reality.

It's a WORD, and you don't own it. The word has many meanings to many people, and your version is merely one of them. Your argument will always fail, because it depends on the entire world abdicating to your opinion, which is not even shared by all who self label themselves Christians.

There are people all over America right now in churches bearing the name of Jesus or the title Christ, and many of those people do not consider some of the others similarly worshipping to be Christians, because of differences in interpretation of the text.

You can say your version is the only version, but saying it only makes it true inside your head.

[Cleobulus]

51. Uhm, its not my version, its the version used by census takers in many different countries...

and by all reasonable people who KNOW they aren't psychic. I'm not a Christian, as someone on the outside looking in, all the theological/minutae squabbles have absolutely no influence that the only way I can tell a Christian from a non-Christian is through their own self identification.

[TexasObserver]

Many are called, but few are chosen.

[treestar]

45. Their way of explaining it is that they are against the government being

involved; it ought to be charity. So they aren't against helping the poor. They want control over who they help, though. It should only be those who deserve it, in their opinion. That way they can control other people's behavior, which is their real goal.

Whether they actually do any real charity it up for grabs; a few of them actually do.

[AnArmyVeteran]

59. A family member said if a person wore jewelry to an ER room they shouldn't get health care.

A family member said if a person showed up in the emergency room with jewelry or even a golden tooth they should not receive health care. He is a conservative 'Christian' but he alone would stand in the way of someone getting life-saving treatment. He would be a one person death panel. But his belief is not his alone. Every conservative Christian I've talked with have similar stories of how they would determine who lives and who dies. They call anyone who wears a necklace 'irresponsible' and therefore should be given a death sentence. They seem to forget about everything in the Bible. Things like 'Take the log out of one's own eye before trying to remove the splinter from another's" or any other passage out of the Bible mean nothing to them. And they forget about all of that love, empathy and compassion crap in the Bible.

The person I mentioned is a Christian fanatic who regularly condemns anyone who isn't responsible, but just a few months ago he was wanting to buy a $500 gun and a get a concealed carry permit and his family didn't even have health insurance. He's a blatant hypocrite, but he reads the Bible regularly, but it's obvious he has no idea what the Bible means. Oh yeah, and when his daughter was born he had to stay in the hospital for a month and the bill was hundreds of thousands of dollars. But even though he didn't have insurance he didn't pay a dime. His wife's family trust paid off the bill. But this guy has absolutely zero empathy for anyone else in need. He is a FAKE Christian, but a good conservative extremist who is a Glenn Beck addict and is addicted to the hatred, anger, racism and fear that Beck and other right wingers spew out regularly.

[LWolf]

53. Yes. Exactly like

a right wing nut-job can be a Democrat if he registers with the party and runs for office with a "D" next to his name.

Labels mean nothing, and those things they label are, like everything else, continually evolving.

[Vampire Knight]

55. Assumptions:

you know what they say about them. You act as if conservatives are entirely against any kind of assistance to the disadvantaged merely because they oppose programs which mandate that people, regardless of their own will, finance them with their taxes. But you discount INDEPENDENT charitable giving. Conservatives just think that you should choose to give, and to whom to give, and how much. After all, it's not charity if it is extracted at gunpoint. And, given the freedom, conservatives usually DO give, and often extravagantly.

I don't agree with a lot of the policies, but you really can't attack conservatives on charity. A couple of my good friends from college were committed Christian conservatives. They married, and they spent their honeymoon in Africa helping to build wells and shelters and distribute aid in a poor, AIDS infested district. They go back every year. That's above and beyond sending money to the IRS every year to maybe, eventually, partially make it to some African warlord. That's change I can believe in.

[saltpoint]

56. A good question, although it's hard to find the info

to make a clinical comparison.

If we're going by what's in the Gospels, this guy from Galilee appeared to advance a socialist agenda. The Gospels are inconsistent, occasionally contradictory, and appear to leave out significant chunks of the story. All the same, a vote for Ronald Reagan, whose administration sanctioned death squads in Central America, would definitely fly in the face of the tenets of Jesus' ministry.

Christianity, whatever that exactly means, would do itself a favor by becoming a human-directed ministry of diverse individuals instead of a hell-driven army of God.

[Vampire Knight]

62. If He wanted socialism,

He would have accepted when people tried to make him a king, and then would have used His popularity to institute a socialist state. Instead, He refused to build a kingdom on Earth where He could force people to do what He wanted. And I think that most of us, as proponents of religious freedom, can certainly appreciate that. You wouldn't want Him to force you to go to church: why do you want Him to be someone who would force you to support others?

[saltpoint]

67. Oh, not really. None of us knows what the guy was up to.

My personal guess is that he may not have made such a huge deal of the distinction between "kingdoms" on earth and upstairs, and used those references to communicate to his audiences, who largely would have thought in those terms.

As for a kingdom on earth, the apostles were armed when they were arrested at Gethsemane.

[Vampire Knight]

68. Not so much.

It's obvious that He and His apostles were often not on the same page as those things go. People wanted to crown him a king on Earth, by force. He would have none of it. Yes the disciples were armed in Gethsemane, but it was Jesus that told them not to fight and even healed one of the soldiers that was attacked by one of the apostles.

[saltpoint]

70. Yep, but they were armed to begin with nevertheless.

I'm guessing they had a little vigilante project in mind.

[Vampire Knight]

74. It's entirely possible.

As I said, they had no idea what was really going on until after it was long over. It's interesting because many churches and church hierarchies *ahem* seem to duplicate this mistake repeatedly throughout history. This particular mistake has caused the church in general some of its most embarassing moments.

[saltpoint]

77. They've missed a lot of points for a long, long, time,

agree.

Sometimes little ones like whether or not this or that passage from the NT is authentic (as if any of us has a damn clue) and sometime very large ones, such as, "Hey, I have a splendid idea -- let's launch a Crusade!"

I do love the anonymous man or woman, self-identified as Christian, who on any night of the week in many countries of the world work the hospital late shift, or do the charitable work under the most anonymous of profiles. And these men and women are very often the first to say that charitable work coming from the heart as it surely does can come from an atheist heart or a Hindu heart or a Buddhist heart, while their hierarchical "superiors" bellow and rage over gay marriage and reproductive freedom.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

92. Whoever told you liberals love the "Twilight" series...

...and therefore "Vampire Knight" would be a good username, didn't make such a good call.

[Vampire Knight]

122. You're clueless.

I'm not trying to cater to anyone. Plus, the name has nothing to do with Twilight, as a simple Google search would have demonstrated. I refer you to my previous observation about assumptions.

[Jim__]

61. "... they condemn everything Jesus stood for."

Based on that as part of the definition of an extreme conservative, I would have to answer no. But, using that as part of your definition, your question is pointless.

[Odin2005]

69. NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY!!!

[BurtWorm]

71. Of course they can be. There are a lot more on the right practicing Christianity than on the left.

Unless by "practicing Christianity" you mean "being my kind of Christian."

[TexasObserver]

80. 2/3 at DU agree: "No, their conservative beliefs are exact opposites of Jesus' teachings."

The vote was very lop sided. Here are DU, where this thread exists, 2/3 who voted agreed with that premise.

In other venues, a different answer might be found, but not here.

[uberllama42]

81. My, what broad brushstrokes you have

Not every far-right person is a total misanthrope. Being against government programs that help people doesn't automatically mean you don't believe in private charity or kindness in any form. It might be a surprise to you, but I have met people who are far-right and yet don't hate sunshine, butterflies and chocolate chip cookies.

[Vampire Knight]

85. "Not every far-right person

is a total misanthrope. Being against government programs that help people doesn't automatically mean you don't believe in private charity or kindness in any form. It might be a surprise to you, but I have met people who are far-right and yet don't hate sunshine, butterflies and chocolate chip cookies."

QFT.

[uberllama42]

87. Thanks. n/t

[struggle4progress]

88. Don't judge, or you'll be judged too. For as you judge others, you yourself

will be judged, and it will be measured to you with the same measure you use. Why look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and disregard the beam in your own? Matthew 7

[laconicsax]

103. +1 for a perfect illustration of hypocrisy by the OP.

[struggle4progress]

106. tu quoque

[EvolveOrConvolve]

104. I don't agree with you often, but I definitely agree with this

People are allowed to self-identify as Christian because that's their right as a US citizen.

[AnArmyVeteran]

110. I just self-identified myself as a brain surgeon. :)

I believe I am, so therefore I am a brain surgeon.

Amen, and amen...

:)

[darkstar3]

111. If that was the definition of brain surgeon, then you'd be right.

But since the definition of brain surgeon has nothing to do with what you believe or what way in which you self-identify, you are incorrect.

You can't say the same about Christianity, as a set of definitions posted earlier in this thread clearly shows.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

121. Haven't you people read the bad-ass, cruel Jesus quotes???

Just a small sample, from only one of the gospels, Matthew:

# Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

# Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

# Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

# Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

# Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

# "The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

# Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

# Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

# Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

# Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

# Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

# Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

# Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

# Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

# Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

# Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

# In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. The parable ends with this: "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you." If you are cruel to others, God will be cruel to you. 18:23-35

# "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

# In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

# Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

# God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

# The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

# Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

# Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46

===============
Of course those conservative Christians are true Christians. They just dig the hateful, wrathful, absurd, cruel Jesus who said all the bloodshed and violence in the OT was just fine with him!!!

Anybody who says they are a Christian is one. No true Scotsman fallacy wins again!

And yes, before you say I hate all of them, I do know some good Christians, that are truly good people.

[Leontius]

116. Why do some people seem to fear judging and judgement? nt

[Deep13]

95. Yes. nt

[Touchdown]

120. Lots of True Scottsmen here.

:applause: Keep at it! You'll eventually fool the rest of us!

[jdp349]

123. Believing in the divinity of Jesus is all that's required to be a christian

Everything else is just commentary.

[darkstar3]

124. Many self-styled Christians on this site don't believe Jesus was divine

I suppose, though, that they aren't real Christians?

[jdp349]

125. It isn't a religious identification then