NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/21719

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-27 | 3.9 KB

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21719 alt.messianic:3727
Path: sparky!uunet!news.claremont.edu!nntp-server.caltech.edu!SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU!CARL
From: [e-mail] (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Date: 27 Dec 1992 11:41:32 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Lines: 58
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <roelle.724628610@uars_mag> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Epstein [415]) writes:
>Mr. Edward's question, "...how are we... to judge whether or not they _are_a
>(sic) christian" is a valid one.  It seems to me; however, that his conclusion
>that skeptics *must* assume that "somebody who claims to be a christian _is_ a
>christian" is not easy to defend. If one wishes to hold the skeptical line, the
>best conclusion one can draw from anyone's claim of Christianity (unless other
>evidence is offered) is, "This person claims to be a Christian."

Well, perhaps you're not aware of the fact that about a month or so ago, in
sci.skeptic, there was a discussion in which we skeptics asked for an
operational definition of the term "Christian."  Needless to say, the
creationists posting to sci.skeptic were not forthcoming with an answer.
Perhaps you are.  Let's read on.

>An ancient debate within the Church has been centered on the question of exactly
>how one should define the word, "Christian;" both as it is used as a noun and an
>adjective. The debate has been so hot in fact that many people have committed
>acts in the name of their definition(s) that I suppose Christ Himself would con-
>demn them.  e.g: The drowning of Ana-baptists by Lutherans, The Spanish Inqui-
>sition, and so on.
>
>I would almost expect it to be taken as axiomatic that persons who ferverently
>behave in a manner which Jesus (based upon what Christians themselves believe
>were his teachings) would condemn should not be assumed to be Christians, bar-
>ring any evidence other than their claims.  As the old saying goes:

Hmmm.  Now, you see, you've just hit on a very problematical point:  There are
various Christian sects that claim that OTHER Christian secst "behave in a
manner which Jesus (based upon what the sect in question believes were his
teachings) would condemn."

So, to paraphrase Grant, "Which of those sects should I believe it correct?"
You see, your agument assumes a unanimity that simply doesn't exist.

>    "If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and
>    lays duck eggs like a duck, the chances are pretty good that its a
>    duck."
>
>Of course Jesus is reported to have said it better:
>
>    "... by their fruit you will recognize them." (Matt. Chap. 7: Vs. 20)

But when one group of soi-disant Christians claim that the fruit of another
group of soi-disant Christians is corrupt, and vice-versa, how are we to tell
which (if either) is correct)?

Despite your raising my hopes, you didn't come anywhere near providing a useful
operational definition of Christianity:  All you said is that "Christianity is
wehat Christians say it is."  Since there are numerous conflicting definitions
using your criterion, how am I to choose which one is correct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.