Exactly, the fact that this pathetic little man made silly video's on youtube is irrelevant now.

Of course, all of this discussion is meaningless if the guy was knowingly CLAIMING to be Christian whilst not actually BELIEVING.

How are we to know that his apparent psychotic behaviour wasn't the result of his inability to reconcile his outward public appearance with this (posited) internal atheism?

Speculation is meaningless without knowing his state of mind, which we can't.

All we can do is look at his actions and say "these do not match what I understand the bible to mean given how I was taught about it".

We can't demonstrate that anyone believes in Jesus without referencing their words and actions. Those are the only evidences available. If you say you believe in Jesus, and do not say or demonstrate anything antithetical to that claim, we must call this person a Christian.

Until mind reading. Which will be soon.

Man, I missed all the good stuff!

In response to Ratbastd, I'm not a christian so your claim that it's a defensive reaction to distance one's own religion isn't true, at least in my case.

I understand and consider a christian to be someone that not only believes but obeys the teachings of Jesus and as many of the old testament laws to the best of their abilities. This includes not killing people, not coveting the woman you can't have, and not letting unwholesome words come out of your mouth. To me, This man failed to follow some of the bibles basic teachings and whatever you want to call him, he's not going to heaven.

There's a reason why these fallacies exist. It's because they're specious. They sound convincing and can be used to support one's case and that's all that matters to most people. Very few people actually care to examine (or care at all!) whether they're making an honest argument or not...

I didn't say that's the only rationale for not calling the guy (or Hitler) a Christian. But it's one I've encountered.

You know, Hitler believed that shit as much as my mother does. Hitler killed millions (including millions who were killed for being Atheists). My mother can't kill insects. If you define faith by FAITH, they're equally Christian. If you define it by ACTS, that's another story.

Yeah, I'm glad to see some lively discussion going on! My threads often end up being boring duds...

I find it funny that so many Christians put so much emphasis on the Old Testament, seeing's how it predates the Good News. Also, the New Testament has a distinctly different feel from the petty and fragile ego exhibited by Yahweh in the Torah.

There are more passages in the Old Testament against eating pork than there is against homosexuality yet that's what fundamentalists fixate themselves on...

I do not enjoy engaging in semantic arguments which is why I was trying very hard to use the same definition of Christianity used by the people on this forum: Orthodox Protestantism, the most popular sect of Christianity in the USA, by far. Obviously, we have a wide range of people here, many of whom practice an unorthodox version of Christianity but I figured it was a good start...

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------

Muslims don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Like the Jews, they just think he was some dude...

Anthony accepted this and is a Christian by American creationist standards...

---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------

That's why I thought this was interesting enough to post here. The sheer irony of this guy calling atheists "non-human" and "immoral" was worth pointing out. Everyone here thinks this guy is insane after having killed somebody but I assure you that there are plenty of people on YouTube who thought his rantings were the voice of reason. To many people, this was not the act of a raving lunatic and I find that disturbing...

Creationists often say that non-belief in their interpretation of the Bible will lead society to immorality and evil. That is to say, creationists often say what Anthony himself was saying in this video. Some people are only now calling him crazy 'cause he killed someone. Did it have to go that far? Wasn't it obvious his belief in creation was crazy to begin with?

Now, it doesn't look like he killed this poor girl for theological reasons. However, I don't think his insanity and his creationism were unrelated and I urge people who subscribe to this nonsense to carefully consider why they believe in that junk...

Hitler used religion for political gain. He was as religious as he needed to be to get supporters. He was a racist and murderer and said something like Germany is his God. That's probably misquoted, but It'll give you something to pick apart and reply to. :) Point being, Saying you are something and being something aren't the same. If you want to call them failed Christians, Fine by me.

Oh, I wasn't saying this wasn't thread-worthy. I was just tired of the semanitc battle going on after your OP, one that you had little to do with.

The thing is that his rantings on Youtube are in no way different than any of the nonsense you yourself spout off here. Or any of the nonsense that I spout, for that matter. The internet, along with the porn-around-every-corner aspect, is the home of the disgruntled. This guy probably didn't type so good. You and I do have that particular skill, so we limit our interactions to the written word, and we can expound on anything that strikes our fancy. And if I've learned anything here, it's that being in opposition is a lot more interesting than following the crowd.

I'm sure you think that your words are the voice of reason. I'll go so far as to grant that I agree with some of the things you've said. But I think that it's laughable to the point of insulting to imply that the kind of crazy that this guy succumbed to is in any way related to his belief in creationism. I know and respect several folks who are adamant believers in creationism. I disagree with them respectfully, but you can't seem to be bothered to be respectful.

Or I could just say that people who use the contraction 'cause are all turtle-rapers and make exactly as much sense as you.

Think about it. Why would a person who believes in God and the afterlife (including eternal damnation), commit murder as one of his last acts on this world, and then immediately afterward commit suicide? Especially if that person is a self-proclaimed Christian who is knowledgeable about the Gospels?

A. That person is deeply angry and resentful toward God for not handling things (i.e. mankind and the world) the way that person thinks they ought to be handled. Thus the murder and subsequent suicide are final acts of ultimate rage and rebellion.

B. That person is deeply angry and resentful toward his religious family members and his fellow church-goers, what with their hurtful judgmentalism and their treacherous hypocrisy. Furthermore, that person is deeply depressed and self-centered, and has not found in his church what he was desperately (and perhaps unrealistically) looking for. Thus, that person commits the acts of murder and suicide as an ultimate "fuck you" to his family and his church.

C. That person is so furious to prove God's existence – or, really, to force God to prove Himself – that he psyches himself into committing some of the most despicable acts he can imagine, hoping that God will reveal Himself and somehow stop him.

D. That person doesn't really believe in God and the afterlife, and therefor doesn't believe there will be eternal consequences for his heinous actions.

E. All of the above. (Yes, some of these reasons can seem contradictory – but that's the way humans are.)

If I claim to be a liberal, but support conservative policy and reject liberal policy, does that mean I'm still a liberal because I say I am and believe I am? Sorry, Will, your attempts to dump this guy's problems on Christianity are horribly misdirected.

His rantings aren't "in no way different" (emphasis is mine) from yours and mine. Would you ever say "I know I'm right, it's as simple as that. You're wrong and you will be wrong no matter what you say..." I would never say that or anything even close to it and that's why our arguments aren't the same type of vacuous rantings as his...

Obviously I don't respect Creationism in the least. Perhaps I can give more respect to individual Creationists but, to my credit, I have not insulted any individuals in this forum. The idea of Creationism is simply stupid and that's why they need to legislate their ideas into classrooms rather than gain scientific consensus the honest way. Now that's insulting... After all, if Evolution overcame scientific, theological and aesthetic opposition, why can't they? Do they have God on their side or what?

Do you support the UN Defamation of Religions resolution? This alone would make a decent thread topic. I contend that it's individuals who have rights and not ideas...

In all fairness to me, you'd have to demonstrate that I rape turtles for that to make as much sense as me...

---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------

If the definition of a liberal was someone who believes themselves to be liberal then yes, you would be...

---------- Post added at 07:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

...because he's as crazy as a Creationist? Wocka Wocka Wocka!

I have no idea why he did this considering what he professed. Maybe he understood himself to be saved regardless of what else he'd do. Maybe he felt he was doing the Lord's work. The God of the Old Testament has asked people to kill before so that whole "Thou shalt not kill" crap is obviously not strictly true. Maybe he believed in the "Thou shalt not commit murder" interpretation and felt spiritually justified in what he was doing. After all, how many Christians support capital punishment?

The point is that just because someone doesn't follow the Bible as you understand it doesn't mean they're not Christian, according to many sects of the faith. Even describing them as "failed" Christians is a bit of a stretch. I mean, we're all sinners aren't we? Is there a bar that you set for success and failure? I've never head of such a thing from any orthodoxy...

And there you brandish one of your favorite axes to grind.

:rolleyes:

You pretty much think that any one who believes in any thing supernatural, is pretty much crazy, don't you?

Jazz, are you suggesting that creationists are turtle-rapers?

The New Testament states, again and again, that God's commandment is to believe in Jesus Christ and to love our fellow man according to the selfless way that Christ demonstrated. Honestly, how can this simple and clear commandment be misunderstood or misconstrued? Any self-proclaimed Christian who doesn't follow this most basic commandment, this most core concept of Christianity, is either a false Christian or a failed one.

Oh, and, IMHO, to compare this to whether or not a "true" Scotsman wears underwear beneath his kilt, is asinine.

It's not asinine in any way, shape or form, it's a perfect example of the fallacy. Even the example on the wiki page I linked is a NTS featuring a "not a real Christian" fallacy:

A: Faith is permanent. Once a Christian, you cannot lose your faith.
B: But Mark used to go to church, and then lost faith in Jesus.
A: Yes, but Mark was never a true Christian in the first place.

Not a true Christian? Of course he was a true Christian. Mark believed in and tried to follow the teachings of Jesus, just like the man from the OP. You redefine "Christian" in order to separate the unsavory individual from your faith, as if somehow his actions are linked to you via a shared faith in god, which is absurd. He believed in god and tried to follow what he understood to be god's wishes.

Shame on you for attacking his faith simply because he was mentally ill.

He failed as a Christian. Can we not end it at that?

There is video evidence of his failing to understand Christian teachings, and he committed murder.

He was a Christian, yes, but in the end he failed to follow the teachings of Christianity.

Will, do you call hating and murdering following the teachings of Christ?

No, simply saying that people who use 'cause are, regardless of their theories of the origins of the universe.

Knife_Missle, I simply need to find one crazy ass lunatic who uses 'cause and sticks his dick in turtles to prove my point. Your argument is that this fellow's belief in creationism contributed to his actions, which holds the exact same amount of water that my turtle-raping theory does. My challenge is to find a turtle-raper who uses the contraction, and, by the same logic you're using, it proves my point. I, on the other hand, can point to literally millions of creationists who never murdered anyone or committed suicide as pretty much proof positive that your argument has a logical fallacy large enough to drive a brown dwarf through (the celestial body or Tia Tequila, your choice - both are equally dense). So unless William Jennings Bryant got up to some shenanigans that didn't make the history books, I hope you realize that what you're saying makes no sense in the real world.

Crazy people do crazy things all the time. Some of them do those things in the name of religion - suicide bombers, Crusaders, etc. That's because crazy people use excuses to justify the unjustifiable. That doesn't seem to be the case here, but this is only noteworthy because we've got a handydandy Youtube video that this guy left behind. I am SURE that I can find an equally hefty African American man in his early twenties preaching the Word of God (as he sees it) with a minimal amount of Youtube effort that hasn't killed himself. Hell, I can probably find two. And when I do, you argument crumbles like a piece of shit left in the sun too long. Let me know if you want me to make the effort.

Jesus couldn't have been more clear about the OT:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-19 (KJV)
In other words, according to Jesus, everything in the Old Testament—all of those bizarre laws and the petulant god—counts. Only someone that ignores the clear words of Jesus could possibly discount anything the OT.

So, bearing this fact in mind, this crazed man may every well have been following the rules of the OT which were endorsed by Jesus as the law of god. All we need now is the motive. If he killed her for being an atheist, he's in the clear (2 Chronicles 15:12-13).

I think Jesus refers to the law of Moses here (i.e. the Ten Commandments), and perhaps is allaying concerns about the Sabbath.

Did the Chronicles outlay laws, or where these merely instructions?

Will, are you trying to make it seem that the murderer acted in a legitimate Christian way?

I was merely asserting in my last post that your "crazy ass lunatic who uses 'cause and sticks his dick in turtles" isn't me... yet... and so your claim isn't quite as strong as mine.

Not that my claim is that creationists are murderous assholes. That was a clear fallacy that I wanted to avoid. That's why I mentioned that he was not theologically motivated...

Trust me when I tell you that I understand that this could have been a crazy atheist on a murderous rampage and I thank God that it wasn't 'cause I know that religious kooks would have claimed that it demonstrated the lack of morality of all atheists. I rue the day...

It's hard to tell what you're reacting to in particular 'cause you didn't quote any context. I certainly haven't said that Creationism causes murders. I have accused Creationists of being crazy but that doesn't appear to be what you're reacting to. Find that video of that other Creationist and I'll show you another adherent to a foolish desire!

My point is that this is a dramatic example of how Creationists don't have a monopoly on morality. I understand that that's obvious to most people here at the TFP but I assure you that there are plenty of Creationists that believe this wholeheartedly. In fact, Anthony himself is an example of this.

---------- Post added at 09:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------

You make it sound unsavory...

By the way, I find it interesting that you edited out the context that makes this clearly a joke...

In that regard, yes!

In more detail, that word doesn't even make any sense... but that's a topic for another thread!

Read it. He said "the law", and he further specified by referring to the prophets. You don't think Ezra was a prophet?
You imply distinction where there is none. The words are perfectly clear:
"That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
I think it's disingenuous to suggest that someone that believes in Jesus isn't Christian. All the "but Jesus said" arguments in the world are totally and completely invalid because following your interpretation of Jesus' teachings isn't a part of the definition of Christian. That's my point. As soon as you leave the most basic definition of Christian, you lose the meaning of the word.

You know I wasn't the one who brought up the No True Scotsman fallacy, right? I'm sure we're all the same to you...

It's nice that you think Christians should follow the example of Christ. I think so too. Would you join me in telling the American Christian majority that they have it all wrong? I'm trying to do that myself but I just don't seem to have enough support. It would be nice if I had a self professed Christian to support me in that endeavor. Regardless, Protestant Christianity disagrees with you. Did you not see all the examples that I laid out for you or is there a reason you left them on the cutting room floor?

I don't know, was he?

Read it: it says "should" be put to death. I think this is more of a moral treatise, and I think it was also revised over time. I think Jesus had a different approach.

I think it's disingenuous too (though Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet). But I also think it's disingenuous to suggest that following the teachings of Christianity is not a part of being Christian.

All this talk about what qualifies whom as Christian reminded me of this fun gem:


The point is that strict adherence to Christ's teachings is impossible so obviously failing to do so can't disqualify you as a Christian or no one would be Christian. QED

Good point, but there are varying degrees. There is room for improvement, and then there's a gross failure. Jesus is considered a saviour for a reason.

Again, that's not the point. It's how he interpreted his own intent that matters. If he believed in Jesus and he followed what he understood to be the teachings of Jesus, he's just as Christian as anyone else. It doesn't matter that he doesn't conform to your interpretation of the teachings of Jesus.

Okay, Will, but we're arguing from the same side of that coin. I know he was a Christian, however deluded he may have been.

That was all I was arguing. He was a Christian in the same way any other Christian is Christian. As for the "failed Christian" thing, I could make a pretty strong argument that the Pope is a failed Christian. Or Martin Luther. Or Jesus. Or god the father.

It bugs me how a lot of Christians out there haven't read the Bible from end to end. I have.. many times.. (heavily strict Christian mother influenced me to when I was younger) and it says in the Bible to pretty much ignore anybody who doesn't believe in God and Jesus. Still be nice and polite and preach to them... but DEFINITELY DO NOT KILL them. Sheesh.

God is there to be God..
Which brings up an ironic point. He complains that Athiests believes themselves to be their own Gods.. yet he went and took a life.


We need more religion in schools honestly. Teach children about different religions and let them know it's okay for someone else to think a different way.

EDIT: oh.. I'm not Christian.. nor Athiest. My mom still is.. and she tolerates my "abnormality" (as she calls it..hahaha).

Will, you sound like one of those Pharisees and other religious leaders in the Gospels who did not believe in Jesus and who were always trying to catch him in a dogmatic technicality, so that they could discredit him and his teachings. (For example, they admonished Jesus and his disciples for not practicing the ceremonial washing before meals. In another example, they tried to condemn Jesus for doing healing works on the Sabbath, the holy day of rest.) For the most part, Jesus refused to play their legalistic games. He had contempt for them, saying unto to them things like, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

If you really want to see hypocrisy, how about a pacifist savior braiding a whip and then going into the temple to physically throw people out? Is it hypocritical for a hypocrite to call other people hypocrites? I'll have to stew on that one for a bit.

I think as an atheist I'd make a bad pharisee. Or a very good one, depending on your take on the whole pharisee thing.

Hot damn, I wish I could turn this post into a sandwich. It was satisfying to read along with its Jazzy following. Thanks, Dad.

It's hard to know who's trolling whom in this thread. Just an observation.

Is anything actually being talked about here?

jazz already said as much, but the premise of the thread is fucked up.

what seems to be the issue, such as it is, amounts to folk who are for whatever reason hostile to either the forms of evangelical protestantism that are able to grow in the petri dish of far right american political culture, or to the whole of xtianity because for whatever reason they assume there's no particular distinction between parts and whole, seeing in this particular situation either a reason or an excuse to run out absurd arguments that would play the meotnym game--describe a whole through one of its parts (not matter how small apparently) as if there were no problems with doing it.

the strange thing about it is--as jazz pointed out as well---that this really isn't anything other than name-calling and more strangely still that it repeats the way of thinking that folk see in the op clip.

so i am not sure what the point is behind much of this, unless it is (accidentally) to demonstrate that the presence of absence of xtianity is inconsequential when it comes to a desire to say stupid things about lots of other people.

and this from someone who has no particular use for christianity.
there may have been a point in this thread where i thought--we're on the same side, so stop making such a poor show of it---but that passed kinda quickly over into this is fucking stupid and it's stayed there.

Look at it this way: it was either this or yet another debate over the 2nd Amendment. Since we had one of those last week, this was the idea that beached itself and then stood rotting in the sun until it disgorged it's smelliness over us all. I'd lock this thread since it's turned into a demostration of the depths of stupidity, but I really don't feel like dealing with the upwards tick of outraged PM's hitting my inbox. I get enough of those as it is.

I rather enjoyed page one...did page 2 go to shit? Trying to catch up now.

It does seem to be Religion Week on TFP.

Wake me when it's Shark Week...

:hyper::hyper::hyper::hyper::hyper::hyper::hyper:

Well, I think maybe now everyone can agree - there is a valid debate about religion and education - but it has very little connection to this revolting little murderer.