Subject:
|
Re: GODMONEY (was re: Anthrax worse than AIDS?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Oct 2001 21:06:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
345 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> > Agreed--just as David Koresh was not a true Christian.
>
> How's that? I'd call Koresh a Christian, just not a mainstream one. What does
> it take to be a 'true' Christian?
I'd argue that the best and only way to determine if one is living consistently
with the precepts of an adopted or assumed philosophical position/worldview is
to compare the precepts to the behavior and try to determine whether or not that
person is being consistent or "true." I'd also argue that one can only use the
essentials of the faith/belief/philosophy as examinatory text because all other
behavior will be open to a wider arc of interpretation due to the lack of non-
universally-applicable principles. In other words, my diet as a Christian is not
an accurate verifier of my authenticity as a Christian because there is a clear-
cut and explicit statement within the New Testament which renders one's diet a
non-issue. Therefore, in this example, a clear-cut case can be inferred that
diet is not a) an essential doctrine, and b) a measuring stick that supersedes
other doctrinal obedience or non-obedience. Granted, some may have a wild
interpretation of the passages in question which leads that person to believe
diet to be the linch-pin; yet, in doctrinal theology as in other fields of
critical analysis, common sense and most-reliable interpretations must be
appealed to if we are to get anywhere past arguing about elementary definitions.
I think that there will always be two "camps" when searching for authorities
regarding the fidelity of person X's adherance to a worldview; those from within
the camp and those from without. I think that the best both the man within and
the man without can do is to become well-informed regarding both their own
position and the position of the other, insofar that is possible and/or
reasonable. Benjamin Franklin said that, "Reading makes a full man, meditation
a profound man, discourse a clear man." That is the best any of us can hope to
do. When I examine Koresh from within the faith I come to the conclusion that
he was not a true Christian because I hold certain doctrinal principles to be
"foundational" for true Christianity and I judge Koresh to have been at odds
with those principles. I cannot expect the man unfamiliar with the faith to
agree with me because he is not passing judgments using the same framework as I.
What I can hope to do, however, is to prove myself a reasonable authority to him
on the subtleties of Christianity such that he accepts my word and therefore
defers to my judgments regarding Koresh.
Anyway, there is no firm answer to who is a True X, as far as I can tell.
just some thoughts,
james
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." - Graucho
Marx
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
