Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Valmy]

Except I don't think I've ever said that TV televangelists, right-wing blowhards, or the like aren't Christians.  You say you believe in Christ, you're a Christian.  The Christian brand is decidedly mixed around the world, with both really high highs, and really low lows.

But I think you can make a distinction between a serious Christian and an unserious one.

What is the basis for that distinction?

[The Minsky Moment]

I agree with BB; "Christianity" is a popular brand name but for many the attach themselves to the label, it is just that.

Christianity is on its face very hard religion to follow with fidelity as it places nearly impossible moral burdens and aspirations on would-be followers.  But the secret sauce since the decline of the Arians is that it is very forgiving of moral failure. It's expected that people will fail; indeed, that is what Christ's grace is there for.  At the same time, the implication that follows - and it is an implication spelled out explicitly if the Gospels - is that one cannot hate one's enemies, because they too are eligible for Christ's grace and may one day be among the saved.  Hate the sin, not the sinner.

What the past 5 years have confirmed is that quite a few Americans identifying themselves as Christians are really nothing of the sort.  Is it a label or identity adopted to define themselves against Others, and those Others are to be objects of hatred, contempt and worse by virtue of their otherness.  Thus, we have the bizarre juxtaposition of "Christians" adhering to the single most un-Christian leader in American history, not merely out of desperation for lack of a better alternative, but affirmatively and worshipfully.

[Barrister]

Except I don't think I've ever said that TV televangelists, right-wing blowhards, or the like aren't Christians.  You say you believe in Christ, you're a Christian.  The Christian brand is decidedly mixed around the world, with both really high highs, and really low lows.

But I think you can make a distinction between a serious Christian and an unserious one.

What is the basis for that distinction?

Knowledge of, and reference to, Scripture and the wider Christian tradition.

[Grey Fox]

Syt, my apologies; I saw that article and thought it fit in perfectly with this thread.  I did not mean to make this the "Canadian Politics Thread 3.0: This Time it's Dumber."

Hi!

En Français, svp.

[crazy canuck]

Except I don't think I've ever said that TV televangelists, right-wing blowhards, or the like aren't Christians.  You say you believe in Christ, you're a Christian.  The Christian brand is decidedly mixed around the world, with both really high highs, and really low lows.

But I think you can make a distinction between a serious Christian and an unserious one.

What is the basis for that distinction?

Knowledge of, and reference to, Scripture and the wider Christian tradition.

If you read the article in question Scripture was quoted and formed the basis of the argument put forward.

[Barrister]

Except I don't think I've ever said that TV televangelists, right-wing blowhards, or the like aren't Christians.  You say you believe in Christ, you're a Christian.  The Christian brand is decidedly mixed around the world, with both really high highs, and really low lows.

But I think you can make a distinction between a serious Christian and an unserious one.

What is the basis for that distinction?

Knowledge of, and reference to, Scripture and the wider Christian tradition.

If you read the article in question Scripture was quoted and formed the basis of the argument put forward.

[The Minsky Moment]

If you read the article in question Scripture was quoted and formed the basis of the argument put forward.

Did it? More like it undermined it.

[Jacob]

If you read the article in question Scripture was quoted and formed the basis of the argument put forward.

Did it? More like it undermined it.

I don't think the author thought so...?

[garbon]

I agree with BB; "Christianity" is a popular brand name but for many the attach themselves to the label, it is just that.

Christianity is on its face very hard religion to follow with fidelity as it places nearly impossible moral burdens and aspirations on would-be followers.  But the secret sauce since the decline of the Arians is that it is very forgiving of moral failure. It's expected that people will fail; indeed, that is what Christ's grace is there for.  At the same time, the implication that follows - and it is an implication spelled out explicitly if the Gospels - is that one cannot hate one's enemies, because they too are eligible for Christ's grace and may one day be among the saved.  Hate the sin, not the sinner.

What the past 5 years have confirmed is that quite a few Americans identifying themselves as Christians are really nothing of the sort.  Is it a label or identity adopted to define themselves against Others, and those Others are to be objects of hatred, contempt and worse by virtue of their otherness.  Thus, we have the bizarre juxtaposition of "Christians" adhering to the single most un-Christian leader in American history, not merely out of desperation for lack of a better alternative, but affirmatively and worshipfully.

I'm not really sure how that's a new development for Christianity?

[crazy canuck]

If you read the article in question Scripture was quoted and formed the basis of the argument put forward.

Did it? More like it undermined it.

Yes, but then again, you would not have written that article.  Nor attempted to defend it.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm not really sure how that's a new development for Christianity?

I didn't say it was.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think the author thought so...?

Nu?

[Valmy]

Except I don't think I've ever said that TV televangelists, right-wing blowhards, or the like aren't Christians.  You say you believe in Christ, you're a Christian.  The Christian brand is decidedly mixed around the world, with both really high highs, and really low lows.

But I think you can make a distinction between a serious Christian and an unserious one.

What is the basis for that distinction?

Knowledge of, and reference to, Scripture and the wider Christian tradition.

One would think that knowledge of those things would be common among believers. Yet...

It always strikes me as odd that people can put so much importance on and faith in something they have never really read or thought much about.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes, but then again, you would not have written that article.  Nor attempted to defend it.

I agree that the article was indefensible but the objective was to troll not elucidate. He knew exactly the reaction his argument would provoke and that was the point.

[crazy canuck]

Yes, but then again, you would not have written that article.  Nor attempted to defend it.

I agree that the article was indefensible but the objective was to troll not elucidate. He knew exactly the reaction his argument would provoke and that was the point.

Yes. But that does not change the fact that he quoted and relied upon scripture for his argument.  You and from his response, BB, would argue that he got it all wrong.  But that is just a theological disagreement.  Not something which casts the author's seriousness as a Christian in doubt.