Creationist Murder/Suicide...
 

I think all these murder suicide guys should reverse the order of their actions...

I'll refrain from making generalizations between Christians and murderous assholes (for now!) and simply say that I knew this guy from YouTube. He was a big fan of Posterboy for Creationist Stupidity as well as being a general moron...

Can't you just feel that Christian love?

This was a very disturbed man. Was the young woman an atheist? Or was it a romantic fixation?

Atheists can't hate god or gods because we lack a belief in god or gods. Some atheists might hate Christians, but it's not because of their belief but usually a part of the grieving process when leaving faith.

Is it too soon for a "the design of that plan wasn't very intelligent" joke?

Couldn't watch the video. I don't hate god. I don't believe in him. But I hate this dude... he is starkly like my Aunt. I'm so sorry for the other student. I'm VERY glad he's dead. Don't know why ... irrational as it is. I'm kinda happy he doesn't have to inflict himself upon others.

But Albus Dumbledore Said, do not pity the dead...

That guy wasn't a christian. He was a crazy person with nothing else to hold on to.

No true Scotsman, eh?

He clearly believed in Jesus, therefore he was a Christian.

What's Christianity? Is it just, believing in Jesus Christ ...

... or behaving like a good person and believing in Jesus Christ?

As for me, it can't be as simple as just believing. Anyone can do that!!! What happenned to "you are what you do"?

Not necessarily...

Are you Catholic?

Protestant orthodoxy is that you don't have to do works ("behave like a good person") to be a Christian and be accepted into heaven. After all, we're all sinners regardless of how "good" we try to be so Christianity is really defined by faith alone...




As an aside, here's a fun creationist video debunked. I include this 'cause there's a bit in there about the role of works:
Personally, I like Father Ted...

A Christian is by definition someone who believes in Jesus Christ. Everything else is just denominational or fallacious.

As far as I can tell this is simply a case of an absolutely revolting murderer, and he seems to be from that video quite clearly insane... the fact he happened to call himself a Christian seems neither here nor there. He seemed to forget "thou shalt not kill" for a start...

Why do people say this? I never understood. He was a Christian, why wouldn't you just write your sentence like this:

"The fact that he happened to be a Christian seems neither here nor there"

willravel is right, definitely a case of "no true scottsman"

He was a failed christian.

He clearly believed in Jesus until the bitter end. I can't imagine how that makes one a "failed Christian". He was a Christian. There's no denying that. It's not a slight against all Christians. He just happened to be a wingnut that believes in Jesus.

I think it's unfair to attempt to score points on Christians by this one man's actions. Obviously killing isn't consistent with the teachings of Christ, and obviously this man was unstable. Beyond the obvious tragedy of it, I'm not sure why this is even a thing.

Similarly, I guess it's the natural defensive reaction of a Christian to try to distance themselves from this man by branding him some sort of bogus Christian. If you're going to be a church of inclusion, an ecumenical church, for sure an evangelical church, then you've got to own your nutcases along with your saints. Christians would do a lot better to admit that Hitler was actually a Christian (he was, and a devout one) than to try to brand him a false Christian or to claim his piety was just for show.

The problem is that the church (any church, really) tries to be The Answer For A Perfect Life. First, there IS no such thing, and SECOND, you've got a REAL problem if one of your Perfect People goes and kills somebody (or a few million somebodies).

If this was reported as "Big black man kills Asian girl" would you find that acceptable?

His claimed faith (which he betrayed by becoming a murderer) is simply one fact about him, as is his race, his family background, his liking of guns, of rock music, or whatever else...

Why should religion be the single fact about him that defines him?

The fact that defines him from my perspective is that I already mentioned, that he is a disgusting murderer.

Probably something to do with a dire failure to follow even the most basic teachings of Christ.

It seems to me this guy had a number of mental issues and that it's not really fair to connect his murder-suicide to his fundamentalism, though perhaps the same mental issues that led him to murder-suicide also made fundamentalism appealing to him.

Offtopic: that's a good video KnifeMissile. The works issue has always been one reason why I have greater general respect for Catholicism than other Christian denominations. There are a lot of ridiculous things in Catholicism, but the whole "works aren't important, but if you accept Jesus you'll do good works, and if you don't do good works it's just proof that you haven't truly accepted Jesus" mess of non-logic within most Protestantism just makes me laugh.

Failed at what? Life? Yes. Christianity? No. Adherents to the Christian belief system, if it were analyzed logically, should embrace death with open arms...your time on earth is just an annoying period before an eternity of happiness and bliss*. Also, if I recall correctly, all actions are binary Sin or Not Sin, regardless of 'magnitude,' so if lying doesn't make you a failed Christian, or betray your faith, neither should this.

*Catholics saw this, and retconned suicide into a mortal sin, however protestants have no similar centralized bureaucracy to do such on-the-fly edits.

---------- Post added at 10:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 AM ----------

That's not what I had an issue with (although I agree with you)...it was that the way you phrased it appeared to be, as ratbastid put it, a "natural defensive reaction of a Christian to try to distance themselves from this man by branding him some sort of bogus Christian."

Only if you consider the appropriated versions, of which there are many.

I don't understand the position you are arguing from. I'm not claiming he's a good representative of the faith (I don't think anyone is), but consider the following scriptural/logical arguement:

1. Murder in the new testament is consistently grouped with lesser sins.
If you believe the above, and are stating definitively that a murderer is not a Christian, what about someone who is angry with or hates their brother, or is drunk, or envies someone? Are these people also definitely not Christians?

2. Are prison ministries just wasting their time? Do the murderers being preached to know that they can't go to heaven?

His radical faith was a big part of what defined him. I watched several of his Youtube videos, it was a huge part of who he was as a person. To follow your illustration, what if a black supremacist killed a white woman? Would his devotion to black supremacy be immaterial? Of course not.
Following the teachings of Christ doesn't determine whether one is or isn't a Christian, it's simply a belief in Jesus. He probably didn't think he was a bad Christian.

Following the teachings of Christ while believing in him is important to being a Christian. Ignoring the teachings of Christ would call into question your being a good Christian. (I think this man was a failed Christian because he clearly didn't follow Christ's teachings.)

Simply believing in him isn't enough. This would suggest Muslims are also Christians.

What constitutes a "good" Christian is entirely subjective. I know people that would consider anyone that has even close to a pro-choice view a bad Christian. I know of some people that think if you shave your beard you're a bad Christian. Because it's so subjective, it loses all objective meaning. If you're a red letter Christian, one that follows literally only what Jesus said, then you can never, ever, ever get a divorce for any reason. Half of all Christians in North America (that's Canada, too) are divorced. Are they bad Christians in your view? Or are they just like every other religious person in the world, cherry-picking what to believe and not to believe?

There are no perfect literallists, after all, because many points in the Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran are contradictory.

Will, he was filled with hate and murdered someone. He wasn't a good Christian.

Are you being obtuse, or what? Jesus himself said (as I quoted above) that it isn't enough to just believe in him.

This angry, fanatical (and probably insane) man who committed murder and then suicide, was indeed a failed Christian.

What do you mean "also"? I never said the man in the OP wasn't a Christian. I said he was a failed Christian. He turned away from the teachings of Christ and destroyed lives, including his own. One who is angry, hateful, drunk, envious, etc., aren't necessarily failed Christians...yet...though they need to do a lot of work to get back on the path that Jesus would want them to.

No.

I'm being literal. Literally, according to our language, you are a Christian if you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. That's what the word "Christian" means in English. Quote from the Bible all you want, it's not going to change a semantic fact. This young man, as fundamentalist and disturbed as he was, is still Christian by the definition of the term. There's no sense in arguing with the facts.

The first definition under Christian as a noun:
christian definition | Dictionary.com

The unfortunate fellow believes in Jesus Christ, therefore he is a Christian.

Word definitions are poor central sources for reasonable discourse.

What defined him even more was his anger and misogyny and depression and oddball behavior, which is what really led him to commit murder and then suicide. As for his "Christianity", that could have been switched out with "Islam" or "Judaism", or even with "atheism", and he still would have ended up committing murder and then suicide.

---------- Post added at 01:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 PM ----------

You're also being legalistic. And petty.

Fair enough. It seems I was making the assumption that by "failed Christian" you meant somehow "not Christian" (or at least, 'less Christian') rather than "still a Christian, but one who failed to embody the proper teachings while here on earth"

Having an understanding of semantics is absolutely necessary for any kind of discourse, reasonable or otherwise. If you reject the standard and demonstrated definition of a word, you're rejecting the language. I don't know or care what "Christian" means in Cynosure-ese, I know and care about what it means in English. This conversation is happening in English, therefore we use the actual definition of "Christian", not whatever definition you want.

Christian: a person who believes in Jesus Christ.

If you don't like it, go lobby Webster.

Technically the definition from Webster is "One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"

And the Dictionary.com definition actually weakens your argument, as you only give 1/2 of the first definition, and the other half plus the following definition shoot your (and my) arguments in the foot, since it could be argued that someone who murders neither adheres nor exemplifies the teachings of Christianity and Christ respectively.

7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ

For the purposes of this now entirely semantic argument, I've been using Christian in the Nicene Creed sense to mean "Someone who believes that Jesus Christ suffered, died, and rose again to forgive their sins and therefore they are going to the Christian heaven when they die"

Using a dictionary to prove whether someone is a Christian is a poor way to go about it. (And this is something I'm not even arguing against. I don't deny he was a Christian.) It suggests that the dictionary is a good source for understanding Christianity and Christians. I don't object outright the use of dictionaries; I object to your use of it. Dictionaries are for defining individual words--something that has relatively limited application. They are essentially bits of information with glossed meanings removed from much context.

Understanding requires more than individual words; it requires sentences and often paragraphs. "Christian: a person who believes in Jesus Christ" on its own doesn't do much for your argument. As I mentioned earlier, Muslims believe in Jesus Christ too.

You preach about "rejecting the language"; you are rejecting context.

It still supports my argument. An adherence to Christianity, as said above, is highly subjective, and is therefore not something that can be proven. I'm sure if you asked the man if he adhered to Christianity, he would have said yes. How is his opinion any less valid than anyone else's?

I prefer the Webster definition, actually, "One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". This man not only believed in the teaching of Jesus Christ, he said so (between cursing and calling atheists insane).

Okay, for your sake and Willravel's, we'll go with that.

So, now, what's your point... ?

:skeptical:

The fact that he was Christian, as far as I'm concerned, is immaterial. He was an emotionally unstable man that made a terrible mistake. He could have just as easily been nonreligious or Jewish or Muslim. That's what I take away from this. I was just tickled by the no true Scotsman.

Um, because he was mentally disturbed, and he committed murder then suicide?

Cynosure <- believes that not everyone's opinions are valid (of course, that's Cynosure's opinion)

I think Will and I both reacted to cybermike's assertation that, despite Mr Powell's vocal Christianity, he wasn't a Christian purely because of the murder/suicide, and the apparent support for that idea provided by yourself, Strange Famous, and Baraka Guru (although BG has clarified his point to what I understand as "he was a Bad Christian" not he wasn't one).

The theology of whether people believe he's going/went to heaven (and why or why not) is an interesting and related issue which we could explore once we've got our verbage straight :thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 11:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 AM ----------

Likewise...sometimes being on forums is like being on Fallacy Safari!

Here's something we can all agree on: religion had little to do with the fact that this guy was a selfish and cowardly motherfucker.

You guys are trying to slap the wrong label on something. Before he did this, "Christian" or "nutjob" or "that guy over there" might (or might not) have been appropriate. Since we're talking about a murder/suicide, those label are completely irrelevant to the conversation.

Christian or not, obnoxious or not, quiet or loud, this guy didn't die by the same rules he wanted others to live by.