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.

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.

I feel this is an interesting response to this event and to the reactions it elicited...

Kodachrome.