"We just want Jews to be perfected."

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
so Christians should never spread the good news to others, because they aren't perfect yet?

You're delusional if you think Coulter was "spreading the good news". She's up there to glorify her ideals and demonize those who disagree with her. She makes that very clear repeatedly.

Converting other people to Christianity is a good work. Stating that ideally, everyone would be Christian, is absolutely true if you believe in Christ.

No. Christ wanted everyone to believe in him. Not to be "Christian". Christianity came about later, and of course takes many different forms.

It's entirely possible to read the New Testament and come to the conclusion that organized religion isn't necessary at all to be saved, or even that those of other non-Christian religions can be saved without becoming Christian. That many Christian religions come to different conclusions doesn't mean to believe in Christ as savior means to be a "Christian". Many even go so far as to claim that those of other sects (eg. LDS) who believe in Christ are not Christians.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
People would be better off thinking for themselves instead of being dogmatic.

That's stupid. You can, presumably, become a Christian by thinking for yourself. But, it doesn't matter. IF you accept the tenets that are common to most Christian religions, then you must, logically, accept conclusions similar to Coulter's.

And Osama bin Laden can convert to Judaism, doesn't mean it'll really happen. People who believe everyone must be a certain way fall into the traps of dogmatism. I doubt dogmatism isn't at play when it comes to the view that everyone must believe in a certain philosophical system.

And whether or not it logically follows (and it may not... look at the Jews, who don't go around converting), its a scary ideal. I'm sure Scientologists believe everyone has to be converted for their well being (and it logically follows from their belief system)... that doesn't mean it isn't scary.

Most Christians I've run into actually do think diversity is a good thing, or at least something that is ok and not something that needs to be changed.

And that's because people aren't perfectly rational and don't always take their beliefs to their logical conclusions.

Or they realize that Christian teachings being good for them doesn't mean it is ok for everyone. And trying to make people convert just for the sake of converting won't help them at all... they don't really believe in the divinity of Jesus, they just say they do.

[Kuciwalker]

And Osama bin Laden can convert to Judaism, doesn't mean it'll really happen.

So no one converts to Christianity out of free thought? They're all brainwashed? that sounds pretty intolerant to me...

People who believe everyone must be a certain way fall into the traps of dogmatism.

No, that has nothing to do with dogma or dogmatism.

dog·ma·tism
–noun
dogmatic character; unfounded positiveness in matters of opinion; arrogant assertion of opinions as truths.

The first definition is uninformative, the second does not apply (it's not unfounded; if you are a Christian, you logically must agree with Coulter's statement), and the third, while true in the particular does not apply in the general (Coulter may be arrogant, but that doesn't refute her statements).

And:

dog·ma
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

The first definition isn't pejorative, the second doesn't apply unless you believe ALL Christians are brainwashed, the third doesn't apply for similar reasons, and the last isn't pejorative.

Or they realize that Christian teachings being good for them doesn't mean it is ok for everyone.

Are you ****ing kidding me? Christians are supposed to spread the Good News. Jesus wanted Christians to try to convert everyone. The Christian teachers are good for everyone because Christ and God and Heaven actually exist, and Jesus' teachings are universal. Are you actually familiar with Christianity at all?

[Kuciwalker]

And whether or not it logically follows (and it may not... look at the Jews, who don't go around converting)

The Jews' tenets are fundamentally different from the Christians'. This is one of those differences.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm sure Scientologists believe everyone has to be converted for their well being (and it logically follows from their belief system)... that doesn't mean it isn't scary.

And that's because we reject the Scientologists entire belief system. If you are going to accept that Christians' tenets are okay, you must admit that the logical conclusions thereof are okay. Otherwise, you must admit that you don't think any Christians are okay, or only hypocritical Christians are okay.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aeson
You're delusional if you think Coulter was "spreading the good news". She's up there to glorify her ideals and demonize those who disagree with her. She makes that very clear repeatedly.

What Coulter actually believes inside has nothing to do with the validity of her argument.

No. Christ wanted everyone to believe in him. Not to
be "Christian".

They mean the same goddamn thing.

It's entirely possible to read the New Testament and come to the conclusion that organized religion isn't necessary at all to be saved

And the common tenets of Christianity don't require organized religion, and nothing Coulter said required people to be members of any organized church.

or even that those of other non-Christian religions can be saved without becoming Christian.

And that does'nt mean it isn't best for them to know and accept the truth.

That many Christian religions come to different conclusions doesn't mean to believe in Christ as savior means to be a "Christian".

So, you're redefining Christian to mean something else, and claiming that this new definition proves your argument. Sorry, buddy. I've been very clear in my meaning and usage, and you misliking my definitions doesn't invalidate my argument.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If you think it's okay for people to be Christian, you must accept that it's okay for her to claim what she did. If you think it was wrong of her to claim what she did, you must think it's wrong to be Christian, which makes you as intolerant as Coulter.

(There is one alternative, actually: you could think it's wrong for people to state the logical conclusion of their beliefs if said conclusion is not politically correct. If so, I'm just going to put you on ignore now.)

There are many other alternatives. You are presenting a false dichotomy based off of faulty premises. Among other things... You do not have to be Christian to believe in Christ. You do not have to believe that it is your responsibility to convert others if you are a Christian, and/or if you believe in Christ. You do not have to agree with the manner with which a specific "conversion" or "spreading of the word" is attempted either.

My personal stance is that I think it's ok for people to be Christian (or otherwise), to say what they think (or keep it to themselves), and for anyone else to agree/disagree with them if that's what they believe. I think the view Coulter presented is pretentious, whether it is "Christian" or not, and hypocritical in regards to what Christ actually taught. Are you saying that if I feel something is pretentious or hypocritical, that I can't say it's pretentious or hypocrical?

It could also be possible to think it was wrong for her to claim what she did because it harms the cause by alienating those you are (supposedly) trying to help out.

It could also be possible to think it was misrepresenting or misconstruing Christian doctrine.

I'm sure there are countless ways you could disagree with what anyone says in a logically consistant manner, without being intolerant. This is what free speech is. Not that you have to accept everything anyone says, but that you can speak your own mind in response and make your own analysis.

[Kuciwalker]

I see a bunch of atheists (and a Mormon, that's odd) arguing that the only okay Christians are the politically correct ones who share every secular belief the atheists have, and never let their religion inform any real-world beliefs or decisions. How intolerant is that?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aeson
There are many other alternatives. You are presenting a false dichotomy based off of faulty premises.

Wrong! Wrong wrong wrong

Premise 1: the tenets common to the various Christian religions derive, deductively, that Christians should convert other people to Christianity, and that such conversion is for those others' own benefit.

Premise 2: Christians are acceptable in society.

Premise 3: Hypocrisy is not acceptable in society, or at the very least is not preferable to intellectual consistency and rigor.

Conclusion 1: from Premise 2 and Premise 3: Christians who believe the logical conclusions of the tenets of Christianity are acceptable in society, or at the very least preferable to Christians who don't believe the logical conclusions of their own axioms.

Conclusion 2: from Conclusion 1 and Premise 1: Christians who believe that everyone would be best off as Christians are acceptable in society, or at the very least preferable to Christians who don't believe that everyone would best off as Christians.

Find the flaw, keeping in mind the below caveat.

*as I have been using the term, which has been very clear. I am going to completely ignore any argument along the lines of "your definition of Christianity is wrong" because such an argument is completely fallacious.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

And whether or not it logically follows (and it may not... look at the Jews, who don't go around converting)

The Jews' tenets are fundamentally different from the Christians'. This is one of those differences.

There are Christian sects (Universalism being the main one) that believe that good works can spare you from damnation and the faith in Jesus isn't absolutely required.

Pelagius, an early church scholar, believed you became righteous by good works and following Jesus' life, not by believing in his divinity. Until Augustine, this type of believe was not considered heterodoxy to the Roman Catholic church.

[Kuciwalker]

I am open to challenge on premises 1 and 3: if you can convince me that the common tenets of Christianity do not logically imply that it is a duty to spread the word and convert others, citing scripture and the history of Christian thought, I will accept that my proof is flawed. (Good luck with that.) If you demonstrate that hypocrisy is, in fact, valuable to society, I will also admit that my proof is flawed. If you disagree with 2, I'll just call you a bigot

[Kuciwalker]

There are Christian sects (Universalism being the main one) that believe that good works can spare you from damnation and the faith in Jesus isn't absolutely required.

That doesn't in any way weaken Premise 1. Christians don't convert others only because their souls are in danger of eternal damnation; it's also a good to spread the truth, and help people do good works with faith in Jesus.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I'm sure Scientologists believe everyone has to be converted for their well being (and it logically follows from their belief system)... that doesn't mean it isn't scary.

And that's because we reject the Scientologists entire belief system. If you are going to accept that Christians' tenets are okay, you must admit that the logical conclusions thereof are okay. Otherwise, you must admit that you don't think any Christians are okay, or only hypocritical Christians are okay.

Can I not say that some Christian sects tenants are ok and some are not? And some tenants of other Christian sects are ok and other are not? Or do I have to pick one side and stick to it for ever?

And as I pointed out, certain sects and belief systems of Christianity do not believe that converting everyone is necessary. In fact, the Reformation introduced the concept of a personal relationship with God... following one narrow view tends not to jibe wit that.

[Kuciwalker]

Pelagius, an early church scholar, believed you became righteous by good works and following Jesus' life, not by believing in his divinity. Until Augustine, this type of believe was not considered heterodoxy to the Roman Catholic church.

If you restrict the acceptable Christians to only those who believe this, you're really saying: "Christians are okay, but ONLY if they are really just humanists who occasionally make noises about God, but never admit he should have any influence on our wordly decisions."

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Can I not say that some Christian sects tenants are ok and some are not? And some tenants of other Christian sects are ok and other are not? Or do I have to pick one side and stick to it for ever?

See above.