Surprising development

I find that Christian universities are now offering degrees in Islamic theology.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/muslims-use-schools-to-secure-foothold-in-europe/

What perhaps surprises me more than anything is that one of the venues offering such is the Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam which was founded by Abraham Kuyper. It would seem that there is an insidious element in the program in that the program—both in Belgium with its bilingual languages of French en Nederlands and in the Netherlands—will be in Dutch. Would that some of the immigrants to this country were thus encouraged to learn the language of the country.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mark Smith

Not such a good development. Thanks for sharing the link.

JoshInRI

At least one leading liberal mainline seminary in MA has a course now geared toward gay and lesbian marriage and liturgy that to me seems to be flaunting its desecration of God ordained one-man+one-woman marriage. Its all about money for these schools if you ask me - not about holding fast to essential Biblical Godly Truth.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/517658#Comment_517658

We can rope this thread off for some rousing "my theology correct! (since I can read)". And no, you don't get to jump to conclusions.

But on the main subject, if anyone has a Logos reference (or trust-able non-Logos) on the theoretical connect of Palestine Christian heretics transformed into the later Islam, it'd be appreciated. In my recent readings, I've seen allusions, but no scholarly references.

One nice thing about Logos is they DO have a currated library .... avoids a lot of interesting titles that turn into badly supported theories.

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/517664#Comment_517664

It's not a matter of theology primarily Denise (although it's that too). It's far more a matter of history, of common sense, and of facing certain realities about Islam. If we're allowed to discuss this in detail, I would love to say more.

~Butters [:)]

JoshInRI

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/517667#Comment_517667

I lump Chris-lam with other bad theology and God-dishonoring choices. Odd world we live in but I have noticed for some time now that some things "sell" now that would have instantly and boldly been labeled heresy by the majority of obedient Christians in the not so distant past.

Logos sells this item

http://www.logos.com/product/2570/the-quran

though I personally believe this is would be a better title myself.

http://www.logos.com/product/17259/understanding-the-koran

"As for me and my house, we will serve The Lord."

Mike Childs

It is not just happening in Europe. One United Methodist Seminary - Claremont - is now training Islamic Imams, in addition to Christian clergy. As a result, a number of United Methodist Churches, including mine, is withholding some funds from the denomination in protest. This is one issue driving our denomination rapidly towards schism. The gay agenda is another. It certainly calls for much prayer as we wrestle with these issues.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518587#Comment_518587

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrislam

JoshInRI ... in the more than distant past, your concerns with syncratic Christianity in the east were far more mainstream than you seem to be aware.

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518602#Comment_518602

In less than 20 yrs you will see a total transformation in this nation- just study Southeast Asia and adjacent regions where Islam (really just another form of Satanism) took root, 20 yrs later they are the predominant force, rule by murder.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518609#Comment_518609

In Japan, it's making inroads among young adults. Deceitfully advocating honesty, caring, love, and community. Quite similar to primitive Christianity.

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518609#Comment_518609

In less than 20 yrs you will see a total transformation in this nation- just study Southeast Asia and adjacent regions where Islam (really just another form of Satanism) took root, 20 yrs later they are the predominant force, rule by murder.

This is why we really cannot afford to hide behind political correctness. We ought to have our eyes wide open about what is happening in the regions you refer to; not to mention much of western Europe.

I am married to a women who was Muslim; and I have spent a long time among Muslims and Muslim communities; she has quite a a few Imams in her immediate and extended family; as well as Shariah judges, and her family has spent millions funding mosques in the US, etc; and much more. I know I am not allowed to say much here and I shall not anyway; however, I will say that very few people understand what is at stake and what the true nature of Islam is. Islam terrifies me and it terrifies my wife; which is one of the many reasons we have to keep our marriage a secret.

Most people who think otherwise know next to nothing about Islam - except what they learn through books or through select Imams; and have spent very little time in actual Muslim communities, or at least not for an appreciable amount of time, and certainly not among people with actual influence.

~Butters

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518679#Comment_518679

To bring more Logos oriented accent to this thread [:)] I would like to recommend to add the following book of Philip Jenkins to Logos:

The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died

Although the author is very careful with his conclusions as far as Islam is concerned, the historical material he presents in this fascinated book speaks for itself. A very sobering reading. But how important for us here in Europe and all the West.

BKMitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518612#Comment_518612

In Japan, it's making inroads among young adults. Deceitfully advocating honesty, caring, love, and community. Quite similar to primitive Christianity.

Where, in Japan?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518724#Comment_518724

BK, I'd assume the Kanto area. The info came from a piece on the youth trends, social trends, etc. where they were quickly moving the camera ... the usual 2 commentators and then in-depth videos (Japan TV).

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518705#Comment_518705

Bohuslav, YES! I'd really like to understand 'what happened'. My guess is that Roman finances were contracting simultaneous with Christian theology locking down in the west (so, heretics in the east). Thus leaving the 'east' to battle inroads from Parthia and Arabia. A good scholarly resource would be good.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518754#Comment_518754

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2007/issue94/14.32.html?start=1

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518863#Comment_518863

https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/download/3836/3403‎

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518863#Comment_518863

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2007/issue94/14.32.html?start=1

Excellent article. Jenkins also gives some good pieces of information about the ministry of Timothy I of the Church of the East.

The slaughter of Christians in the East mainly by Muslim forces remains however a cruel reality.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518978#Comment_518978

The slaughter of Christians in the East mainly by Muslim forces remains however a cruel reality.

Quite true. Unfortunately, we as Christians have committed our own atrocities. One should not whitewash the ugliness of human history. On the other-hand, we can use honest evaluation to minimize the degree to which the future is doomed to repeat the horrors of the past.

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518982#Comment_518982

The slaughter of Christians in the East mainly by Muslim forces remains however a cruel reality.

Quite true. Unfortunately, we as Christians have committed our own atrocities. One should not whitewash the ugliness of human history. On the other-hand, we can use honest evaluation to minimize the degree to which the future is doomed to repeat the horrors of the past.

You are right. Although looking into the history and the way Islam started I doubt it is possible. I think the only way is to be true to the heart of Christianity (which is Christ), humbly respecting (even loving) those "others", always ready to respectfully explain why we believe what we believe - however without any syncretistic creation of the "World Theology" of any kind which reminds me much more anti-christ system of Apocalypsa then teaching and example of Jesus the Christ. Violence in the Christian past had been IMHO a blatant break from the roots of Jesus' teaching and example - while the matter of violence in Islam is not that clear and by no means is not deviation from the roots of teaching and example of the Prophet of Islam.

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518985#Comment_518985

Just to add one more information to the subject: we do have Samuel Zwemer's collection in Logos. I was lucky to get it by the Community Pricing for a great price. The price now is not that positive but still worth of looking at.

JoshInRI

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518988#Comment_518988

At long last a return to sanity....thanks for posting the recommendation.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518705#Comment_518705

Well, I couldn't resist a PaperWhite reading of 'Lost History of Christianity' (didn't want be insane). To a large degree it takes a 'lay' approach, not getting too fancy with the details. Logos wouldn't have much to tag, if only because there's not much in Logos to tag to. But quite lengthy notes.

It does discuss more than Islam, looking at how large chunks of Christianity can die with no apparent concern by God (quotes from Christians at the time).

The part on Japan was interesting, having been documented by Christians in the Philippines and Macao at the time. My emphasis:

"When Christian communities are destroyed, they rarely vanish entirely or immediately, and survivors often maintain a clandestine existence for many years afterward. One spectacular example of such crypto-Christianity occurs in Japan, where seventeenth-century governments extirpated a thriving European Catholic mission that at its height had three hundred thousand followers.

... and in 1865, a Catholic priest received some surprising visitors. Nervously, in constant fear of detection, fifteen elderly Japanese peasants wanted to ask him what he knew about the faith they had maintained secretly for so long.

They asked particularly about O Deusu Sama, O Yasu Sama, and Santa Maria Sama, by which names they designated God, Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin."

Interesting book.

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/518982#Comment_518982

Quite true. Unfortunately, we as Christians have committed our own atrocities. One should not whitewash the ugliness of human history. On the other-hand, we can use honest evaluation to minimize the degree to which the future is doomed to repeat the horrors of the past.

I disagree with your statement above.

Re: "we as Christians have committed our own atrocities", no... by committing atrocities those persons who called themselves 'Christians' proved that they were anything but followers of Christ.

Whereas those who identify themselves as Muslims and lie, kill, and more, are showing themselves to be true followers of Mohammed, and that they adhere to the tenets and teachings of the Koran and Hadiths (and if one does not believe/accept this statement then they should read the Islamic texts to find out for themselves first hand).

That's the difference.

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519347#Comment_519347

Patrick and MJ. do You think that even with a somewhat limited budget, averaging ~$1,000 a year, that it's important to study History?

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519347#Comment_519347

Quite true. Unfortunately, we as Christians have committed our own atrocities. One should not whitewash the ugliness of human history. On the other-hand, we can use honest evaluation to minimize the degree to which the future is doomed to repeat the horrors of the past.

I disagree with your statement above.

Re: "we as Christians have committed our own atrocities", no... by committing atrocities those persons who called themselves 'Christians' proved that they were anything but followers of Christ.

Whereas those who identify themselves as Muslims and lie, kill, and more, are showing themselves to be true followers of Mohammed, and that they adhere to the tenets and teachings of the Koran and Hadiths (and if one does not believe/accept this statement then they should read the Islamic texts to find out for themselves first hand).

That's the difference.

I utterly concur.

~Butters [:)]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519372#Comment_519372

Yep. I never did believe the Muslims were pushed out of Spain by true Christians. The Crusaders definitely 'not'. Certainly not the whole South American conquorers. Oh wait. The little books they carry is the key. Atrocities by correct reading of a book is far worse than atrocities by wrong reading of a book.

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519381#Comment_519381

Yep. I never did believe the Muslims were pushed out of Spain by true Christians. The Crusaders definitely 'not'. Certainly not the whole South American conquorers. Oh wait. The little books they carry is the key. Atrocities by correct reading of a book is far worse than atrocities by wrong reading of a book.

Please let us not forget that:

1. The Muslims didn't simply saunter into Spain- or anywhere else in their Caliphate - peacefully. History books always present as: "somehow" the Muslims just magically appeared in the Caliphate region; and then the Christian west barbarically committed unmitigated genocide. Both assertions are ridiculously unfounded.

2. Taking up arms to defend one's house and home - or the house and home of innocent victims - is perfectly Christian. [Edit: I am not saying that entire Crusades can be characterized in this way...]

3. The Crusades were a complex phenomena that really cannot be generalized about without doing violence to the truth of history. As with the "Spanish Inquisition" there is a veritable blizzard of misinformation about the Crusades (by the way, which one?).

4. There were a great many atrocities committed by the "Conquistadors" - this is true. But please let us not imagine that they were conquering peaceful indigenous people. The Aztecs, for example, were utterly barbaric. I'm not saying that the Conquistadors were justified, just trying to balance what is often a very one-sided discussion, where indigenous people are romanticized and sentimentalized into something unreal and fantastic.

Atrocities by correct reading of a book is far worse than atrocities by wrong reading of a book.

5. ^ yes indeed.

~Butters [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519348#Comment_519348

Patrick and MJ. do You think that even with a somewhat limited budget, averaging ~$1,000 a year, that it's important to study History?

Very much so ... the heresies and theological dead ends we see today simply resurrect the heresies and theological dead ends of the past. And there is much positive in the past, that has gotten laid side by cultural changes and accident.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519382#Comment_519382

Yep. I never did believe the Muslims were pushed out of Spain by true Christians. The Crusaders definitely 'not'. Certainly not the whole South American conquorers. Oh wait. The little books they carry is the key. Atrocities by correct reading of a book is far worse than atrocities by wrong reading of a book.

Please let us not forget that:

1. The Muslims didn't simply saunter into Spain- or anywhere else in their Caliphate - peacefully. History books always present as: "somehow" the Muslims just magically appeared in the Caliphate region; and then the Christian west barbarically committed unmitigated genocide. Both assertions are ridiculously unfounded.

2. Taking up arms to defend one's house and home - or the house and home of innocent victims - is perfectly Christian. [Edit: I am not saying that entire Crusades can be characterized in this way...]

3. The Crusades were a complex phenomena that really cannot be generalized about without doing violence to the truth of history. As with the "Spanish Inquisition" there is a veritable blizzard of misinformation about the Crusades (by the way, which one?).

4. There were a great many atrocities committed by the "Conquistadors" - this is true. But please let us not imagine that they were conquering peaceful indigenous people. The Aztecs, for example, were utterly barbaric. I'm not saying that the Conquistadors were justified, just trying to balance what is often a very one-sided discussion, where indigenous people are romanticized and sentimentalized into something unreal and fantastic.

Atrocities by correct reading of a book is far worse than atrocities by wrong reading of a book.

5. ^ yes indeed.

~Butters

I'm with you on this.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519382#Comment_519382

Butters ... I wondering where I can lead you next. What about the Christians who denied slaves Christian entry if their masters disagreed?

That'd be in your Logos resources.

Forever doomed.

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519348#Comment_519348

I see, in one sense unsurprisingly/regrettably, this discussion goes down a predictable path.

I'm not quite sure how to take the comment "do you think that [...] it's important to study History?" Meaning I don't know if it is an ad hominem comment or not with respect to intimating that I am unaware of history. I am very aware of history. If one wants to talk about the worst atrocities perpetrated in the name of/by (so called) Christians, then one need look no further than the sack of Constantinople. No, I don't mean when Constantinople fell to the Muslim Turks, but the sack of Constantinople in 1204 by the 'virtuous' Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade — where it would be fair to say the city (and its inhabitants) was raped and pillaged by western powers. A tragedy which contributed directly to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. And these were fellow Christians the Crusaders were doing this to.

No... like John says of Jesus, "But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man." (John 2:24-25) I believe all of us know implicitly that the heart of humanity has a problem. It's called 'fallen humanity' — and I believe we can read about it 'ad nauseam' also in our Logos resources.

So when persons say to me about people — whether they be (so called) 'Christians', Muslims, Buddhists... and even atheists — that they have done terrible things my thought is 'yes... and you should be surprised? they are just following their father the devil'. So to say that because persons professing to be 'christians' have done terrible things, therefore it follows, ipso facto, that Christianity and/or Christ is lacking is just simply a fallacy. To say that (some, so called) 'christians' have done terrible things, therefore we should not say anything about other persons and/or religions is simply 'politically correct', cultural cringe, post-modernist, nonsense. It's a ploy by those who reject Jesus to silence those who wish to share Jesus — because they know (perhaps even better then most Christians) that if Jesus exists, and truly is God, then He makes claims on their lives.

So to 'tar' Jesus with the same brush as humanity, to judge him based on his followers, is not correct. However.... by the same token does this mean that Christians should not be holy, exhibiting the life of Christ? Of course not.

So we should take out of the discussion references to what (so called) Christians may, or may not, have done. Just as we should not discount that there may be persons of other religions who exhibit the heart of Christ better than some Christians.

So we are not talking about how well, or how badly, persons follow what is written and taught about Jesus, but what is written and accepted (even by demons) by persons about Jesus and Christianity versus other faiths, one in particular. So it is a question of what exactly what is written and accepted about a faith, and the founder of that faith, that a person is trying to follow and adhere to. In that aspect when I read things like:

"whoever changes his religion — kill him", "whoever insults the prophet — kill him", "your wife is like a field you plough, go in and plough her whenever you want" and "take my (bloody) sword and clean it daughter, it has served me well today".

I know this isn't talking about the Lord who inspires me and whom I follow.

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519711#Comment_519711

Thanks Patrick - those are excellent and illuminating points. I have only read a few of your posts but I find I learn a lot from them.

~Butters [:)]

Mitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519347#Comment_519347

Re: "we as Christians have committed our own atrocities", no... by committing atrocities those persons who called themselves 'Christians' proved that they were anything but followers of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519762#Comment_519762

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[:D][Y]

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519764#Comment_519764

@M.J. Smith...

In the above post:

1. I haven't seen you attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."

2. I haven't seen you list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3. I haven't seen you mention anything you have learned from your target.

4. Only this: a somewhat snarky smiley face and thumbs up to an un-argued point that fails to really engage with what Patrick was saying and was made by lamely posting a wikipedia link.

I have a lot to say in your thread about forum manners; until then, however, I will just make note of the above. Thanks for making one of my future points crystal clear though!

~Butters [:)]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519762#Comment_519762

Didn't it turn out that they were Englishmen in both cases? [;)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519769#Comment_519769

As a logician, I was merely appreciating the fact that I had no need to bring out the fallacy hound.

As for the thread's general topic, I choose to be a non-participant for a variety of reasons including that I have nothing related to Logos to contribute. I did, however, post references which I considered germane in hopes of moving the thread in a direction which was more amenable to Logos related input. I hoped that the references were of interest to all sides, if there are sides, in this thread.

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519779#Comment_519779

As a logician, I was merely appreciating the fact that I had no need to bring out the fallacy hound. As for the thread's general topic, I choose to be a non-participant for a variety of reasons including that I have nothing related to Logos to contribute.

As a logician you seem to have a poor grasp of logic. Among other things, according to you, it's apparently okay not to abide by your "forum politeness guidelines" (which you expect other people to follow) so long as you declare yourself a "non-participant" who also has nothing to say that is "related to Logos" - but then go on to write a snarky post anyway?

Do I have that right?

You are so unbelievably subtle, I'm just trying to understand your position here! Thanks!

~Butters [:)]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519781#Comment_519781

Let's not insult the snarks. They have enough trouble with over-fishing.

If anyone feels excessively happy and needs a strong dose of 'depressing', Bohuslav's recommended title http://www.amazon.com/Lost-History-Christianity-Thousand-Year-Asia/dp/0061472816 will definitely fill the bill.

The kindle's only $10. As earlier noted, the author basically starts in the Nicene period and tracks forward. Although eastern Christianity seems to have really grown large, measured by metropolitans and bishoprics, just about every problem imaginable swamped the boat. Over and over. By 1910, it was limping along, but really hit bottom after that. I was surprised Smyrna was heavily Christian in 1910, along with Constantinople.

The author evinces some good observations; some certainly arguable. But by the time you're approaching the 'notes', nothing is offered as a solution. Reproductive rates are really a 'killer'. So also Palestine today.

James W Bennett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519781#Comment_519781

I read a lot of threads on these forums and have since the start of the forums. I also followed the newsgroups for years before the forums were started. Yet I rarely post unless it has to do with perceived technical issues with the software or use of the software and the resources. Because that is the purpose of the forums. I most definitely DO NOT get involved in doctrinal or theological issues (barring one fall a couple of years ago which I remember and regret).

Mr/Mrs/Ms Butters...

I would ask that you please review all posts in this thread by MJ. I think you will find that your comments were unwarranted. I most certainly did not find a "snarky" post.

I would also ask that the moderator(s) please freeze this thread because it does not follow the forum rules. It did not even begin as an appropriate forum thread as per the forum rules.

Finally, don't bother responding to my post, even if you agree with my position. I will not comment further in a thread that has nothing to deal with Logos products.

As a logician, I was merely appreciating the fact that I had no need to bring out the fallacy hound. As for the thread's general topic, I choose to be a non-participant for a variety of reasons including that I have nothing related to Logos to contribute.

As a logician you seem to have a poor grasp of logic. Among other things, according to you, it's apparently okay not to abide by your "forum politeness guidelines" (which you expect other people to follow) so long as you declare yourself a "non-participant" who also has nothing to say that is "related to Logos" - but then go on to write a snarky post anyway?

Do I have that right?

You are so unbelievably subtle, I'm just trying to understand your position here! Thanks!

~Butters

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519840#Comment_519840

I would ask that you please review all posts in this thread by MJ. I think you will find that your comments were unwarranted. I most certainly did not find a "snarky" post.

Dear Mr. Bennett.

You seem to have left out my original response post and merely focused on the word "snarky" in the last post. Were you to read the original post, you would have context for why I called a post "snarky."

~Butters [:)]

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519849#Comment_519849

Just in case anyone reading is not clear about this: I don’t actually think that MJ’s post was “snarky” - all I was doing was holding MJ up to her own standards of “polite forum” behavior guidelines that she posted up in another thread, guidelines to which she expects others to conform.

Indeed, I have no problem at all with feisty and spirited debate; that is what I personally grew up on, and I must say it’s a bit of a culture shock to meet people (in both the virtual and real world) who put such an overwhelming premium on being sensitive, “perspectival” etc.

And yet, that^ is not quite true after all.

What is a bit closer to the truth is that demands that people be more “sensitive” and “nuanced” and “perspectival” (and all the other ways we try to feminize what such people call “discourse”) are usually made when a person doesn’t agree with the post.

These demands are more often than not ways of insulating oneself from penetrating analysis and rigorous thinking; as well as ways of controlling conversations and debate so that it conforms to one's own viewpoint.

MJ merely thought she was just being “logically correct” in her post - and while I don't agree with her, I have no problem with her "mode of discourse." What I do have a problem with is when people label a post as impolite because the post goes against a kind of unsaid consensus viewpoint.

In other words, if a post expresses a consensus opinion content-wise, one can be as impolite (“snarky”) as one likes and it goes un-noticed; whereas, if a post’s content expresses a non-consensus position, it is perceive it as impolite, however politely written. I have noticed (and noted) this on many threads in this forum.

In short, it seems to me that for many people perceptions of “polite” or “impolite” posts are highly (if not almost completely) mediated by whether that person agrees or disagrees with the content of the post.

As for me, my education and upbringing was entirely conducted upon spirited debate and often in tutorials with very intimidating and able adversaries as tutors; I am very used to the rough and tumble of verbal debate and do not mind at all a bit of feistiness - indeed, I relish it. And look on with chagrin at its loss in a verbal culture that has been so Carol Gilligan-ated and feminized.

~Butters [:)]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519861#Comment_519861

Butters ... when in a hole, you're not supposed to dig down to climb out. It may well be you don't do well with women (feminize as you put it), but they do make up a small portion of your world. No need to expand the snarkification.

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519762#Comment_519762

Re: "we as Christians have committed our own atrocities", no... by committing atrocities those persons who called themselves 'Christians' proved that they were anything but followers of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Did some atheist toss that line of reasoning at you recently? Here's some thoughts you can throw back at them as a ('true' - sorry couldn't resist [:)]) Christian.

"Broadly speaking, the fallacy does not apply if there is a clear and well-understood definition of what membership in a group requires and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., "no honest man would lie like that!", "no Christian would worship Satan!" and so on)."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

I believe, and I think I'm in good company with the apostles Paul & John here, that there is a very clear definition, and elucidation, of what membership in the body of Christ requires — it's called the New Testament. I'm thinking particularly of 1 John with respect to this discussion.

Playing with this a bit...if we follow the line of reasoning in the 'no true Scotsman' there is a very simple criteria for membership in the set 'Scotsman', well it could be argued but let's just agree that for the purposes of this discussion that the criteria is either — being born in Scotland and/or being born to Scottish parents. Either way the 'Scotsman' is part of the set not by virtue of anything he has done. Two Scots did it and he was the result. The poor Scotsman can't take himself out of the set 'Scotsman', just as much as the leopard can't change its spots.

He can't be 'reborn' into a new set (of people), he's stuck where he is. I can just imagine the Scotsman plaintively asking “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” And the person facing him says "You must be born again". But we all know what Jesus is really saying. One of the things I really love reading about Jesus is his one on one encounters with different people, he makes what appear on the surface to be illogical statements, but he goes straight to the heart of the person — as can be seen by their responses.

People may try to be clever and espouse logic (and there is nothing wrong with logic per se) for logic's sake, but that does not change the fact that Jesus and the NT writers clearly define what membership of the group (set) 'Christian' requires.

Paul, as we all know, also goes into detail about the realities of the struggle of the Christian life in Romans. But, you know, somehow I just don't see the Crusaders while they were pillaging and raping their way through Constantinople quoting Romans 7:17-20 to themselves.

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519779#Comment_519779

As a logician, I was merely appreciating the fact that I had no need to bring out the fallacy hound.

Careful, he might turn on you and bite you for disturbing him for no reason.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This...

I choose to be a non-participant for a variety of reasons

plus this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Is not logical — and you know it.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/519944#Comment_519944

"Broadly speaking, the fallacy does not apply if there is a clear and well-understood definition of what membership in a group requires and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., "no honest man would lie like that!", "no Christian would worship Satan!" and so on)."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

[Y] [Y] and thanks for the link!