What is a "Christianist"?

[Thats my opinion]

This morning a friend sent me a definition of Christianist from The Urban Dictionary

Christianist*

1. Christianist
One who claims to be a follower of Christ and His teachings but who actively engages in acts and deeds that are contrary to His teachings.
A pastor who calls for the murder of someone whose political beliefs are disagreeable to him (or her) is a Christianist, not a Christian.

2. Christianist
A member, or members of the Christian religion that uses it as a negative weapon against a person, or an entire group of people.
An anti-gay Christianist group, NOM, believes they're protecting marriage by banning gay marriage.

3. Christianist
A member of the Christian faith who seeks to use a religion of peace and tolerance for political and personal gain.
Pat Robertson and his band of Christianists are doing everything they can to keep the Republicans in power.
*Definitions from the Urban Dictionary


Perhaps Rep.Akin fits this definition. This sort of thinking escapes the NTS category. While I struggle with the distinction, I find I must believe that there is a difference between Christians and Christianists.

[skepticscott]

1. You can dress a pig in a tux

but it's still a pig. No True Scotsman is still a fallacy, no matter how you spin it.

NO ONE who calls themself a Christian follows ALL of the teachings and dictates of Jesus from the NT. They all pick the ones they like and interpret the ones they don't to suit them.

[okasha]

9. So let's get this straight.

By your logic, no one can be a Democrat unless s/he agrees with every single one of the party's policies. Therefore all Democrats must support the war in Western Asia, the use of Blackwater and other mercentary troops, the giveaway to the big banks that Obama and other Democrats supported just before the end of Bush's term, the addministration's initial support for DOMA (and you must have changed your mind about that only when they realized that the GayTM was drying up.)

Has that about got it?

[Fumesucker]

10. Actually I think you have it exactly backward..

Anyone who calls themselves a Democrat is indeed a Democrat, no matter what policies they may or may not support.

At least that's the rationale of the No True Scotsman fallacy..

[okasha]

11. Actually,

I think you're employing a double standard. Ever seen the word DINO? Ever seen anyone here argue with it?

[Fumesucker]

12. I'm just pointing out the meaning of the No True Scotsman fallacy..

Plenty of people employ that fallacy on a daily basis..

It doesn't make it any less of a fallacy.

[okasha]

15. I'm aware of the fallacy, thanks.

I also know special pleading and hypocrisy when I see it.

[skepticscott]

29. Oh, people here like to USE the term DINO

But most people labeled as such could probably turn right around and cite principles that THEY think are vital to being a Democrat, and that the person doing the labeling doesn't agree with. There are no objective measures to decide who's right.

Same for Christianity. Do you need that explained too, or do you have list of all the things one must believe, profess and adhere to in order to be considered a "true" Christian, as opposed to just a "Christianist"? And do you have an argument for why someone who simply believes that Jesus Christ was the true son of god, that he died and was resurrected to redeem the sins of mankind, and who accepts him as savior is NOT a Christian? Did Jesus say that only people who follow certain of his teachings was a "real" Christian? If not Jesus, then who? What are the objective measures (as opposed to personal opinions) that determine who the "true" Christians are?

[ZombieHorde]

82. President Obama has been accused of not being a real Dem many times on DU. nt

[skepticscott]

86. I think you'll find

that the laundress has gone back into hiding, after having yet another attempt to wash, rinse and repeat deflated.

[skepticscott]

13. No, that's YOUR logic

and your burning need to put words in my mouth to make my argument look bad.

My position is that one Democrat (or one Christian) can't honestly and unhypocritically point to another and say they're not a REAL Democrat/Christian because they don't adhere to all of the same Democratic/Christian principles that the pointer and others do. And that giving another self-identified Democrat an isolating label like "Democratist" because of those differences is more than a little arrogant.

Good try, though..nice to see you haven't changed

[okasha]

14. Your argument already looks bad.

And it's all yours.

[eqfan592]

16. I dunno, seemed pretty sound to me.

Your counter argument, on the other hand....

[skepticscott]

17. Gee, only one exchange

and you're already resorting to unsupported flailing and lame attempts at dismissal.

Unless you have more than that, you're even less convincing than usual.

[okasha]

18. See above,

Wash, riinse, repeat.

[rexcat]

28. Epic failure on your part...

and you should use the "Check Spelling" function provided by DU.

[skepticscott]

30. Says the laundress

You have no facts, no argument, no position (other than an ignorant misstatement of mine), no nothing. Why you've even jumped in here remains a mystery.

[okasha]

93. Well,

a single post seems to have been sufficient to reduce you to petulance ("You're just trying to make my post look bad! Waaaah!&quot and one of your buddies to the status of spelling nazi. I think that says all that needs to be said about the quality of your argument.

[cleanhippie]

94. Its funny that you admonish SS's argument yet have none of your own.

Your just flinging poo or no reason other than to see what it sticks to.

[okasha]

96. I accept that you are indeed

an expert at and on "flinging poo."

[eqfan592]

20. Yeah, actually, you did get it completely backwards.

I honestly don't know how you could possibly get this from what skepticscott wrote....

[trotsky]

21. LOL

Epic fail.

[cpwm17]

25. Perhaps the No True Scotsman fallacy isn't really applicable here

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

Religion is even more complicated, since there are so many different religious sects, and often religion is defined in one's own personal way. So saying "No True Christian ..." is not necessarily a "No True Scotsman" fallacy if the person making the statement defines their religion in such a way that really does preclude people who they do not deem to be "True Christians".

The only time the "No True Scotsman" fallacy holds is when the person committing the fallacy is changing their pre-established definition of whatever their equivalent of "Scotsman" means to something new in an effort to bolster their argument.

For example:
Man A defines a Scotsman as someone born in Scotland. Man B tells Man A that a Scotsman just stole some grain from him. Man A says "No Scotsman would do that!" Man B says "But he was born in Scotland." Man A then says, "Well, no TRUE Scotsman would do that" and effectively changes his definition of a Scotsman to not only someone born in Scotland, but someone born in Scotland who would never steal grain. He has changed his definition to better fit his argument. Man A has just committed the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Christianity isn't really one thing. Sometimes people use the No True Scotsman fallacy arguement against the religious as a way to assign collective guilt.

It seems very fair for a non Christian to point out the consistent bad attitude of many people that call themselves Christian, and use it against all of Christianity. The consistent bad attitude demonstrates the weakness of the religion in general.

[skepticscott]

33. That's what this whole post harkens back to, though

even though the history is not reflected here. This poster and others have tried very hard for a long time to sell the notion that any good done by religious people has to have been motivated by their religious beliefs, while at the same time trying to deny that the evil done by religious people also was so motivated. This is just their latest dodge, to try to argue that all of the despicable, bigoted, ungenerous Christians in this country aren't "true" Christians, and therefore their religion can't be held to account for any of what they say or do (even if it comes straight from the Bible).

[cpwm17]

42. The Bible is certainly a major weakness of Christianity

It's difficult to avoid that.

[cbayer]

2. Wikipedia has a pretty good description of this as well.

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

Here is William Safire's definition:

I have a new term for those on the fringes of the religious right who have used the Gospels to perpetuate their own aspirations for power, control and oppression: Christianists. They are as anathema to true Christians as the Islamists are to true Islam."[2]

We have talked in this group about needing some new vocabulary to more clearly describe and differentiate and this may be a good example of how to proceed with that.

[skepticscott]

3. No, YOU and your father have tried desperately

to argue and propagandize that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, cannot possibly motivate people to do evil, even though you know that's blatantly false.

Stumping for the redefining of words is just the latest attempt to push your agenda.

[longship]

4. Well, I kind of like it.

It certainly seems to fit the characteristics of our political opponents. However, I am not sure such rhetoric can catch on. But we won't know that unless we try it.

So I support this.

[trotsky]

6. "Christianist: a person who calls themselves a Christian but doesn't follow the teachings of Jesus"

Pat Robertson can then call every liberal Christian a Christianist.

And he's equally justified in doing so.

[cbayer]

7. I support it as well.

It has been difficult to make a distinction without referring to a specific belief system, which can be problematic.

[trotsky]

5. There is blatant question-begging in definition #1.

"deeds that are contrary to his teachings" - It seems to me that no two Christians ever agree on precisely what those teachings were. If there is no universal agreement on that, then this label of "Christianist" means simply "anyone who calls themselves Christian but believes differently than I do."

So, in other words, No True Scotsman rides again.

[eqfan592]

8. Yeah, that was the first thing that came to my mind.

I don't really see any good coming from this.

[rrneck]

19. I prefer the term "asshole". nt

[2ndAmForComputers]

22. "...there is a difference between Christians and Christianists"

Yes.

Just like there is a difference between Floridians and Miamians.

[cbayer]

23. Perhaps a better analogy would be the difference between

San Franciscans and and San Diegans. While both are in the same state, they tend to be very different politically.

It's important to be able to distinguish them when discussing California, or one might miss the whole point.

[rexcat]

31. You could say the same for...

Catholics and Baptists. What is the point you are trying to prove? I would say if someone says they are a Christian, other then what sect or cult they are a member of, is all that needs to be said.

[cbayer]

34. Not all christians are affiliated with a denomination and not all denominations

have homogenous congregations.

If we are defining along ideological or political lines, there is a clear difference between the liberal/progressive christians and the christian right.

Just as there is a difference between atheists who align themselves with deBotton, Ayn Rand or Dawkins or whatever sect or cult they may identify with.

[rexcat]

37. As far as the use of "Christianist"...

it would appear to be used somewhat as a derogatory term. They aren't Christians but Christianist.

[cbayer]

39. None of the definitions say the person is not a christian.

On the contrary, the second two definitions in the OP clearly define them as "members of the christian religion".

Yes, it is being used as a derogatory term, because a lot of christians want to distinguish themselves from groups that hold opposite ideological positions.

Just as many atheists want to distance themselves ideologically from Ayn Rand, and with good reason.

[rexcat]

41. See my post #40.

[skepticscott]

44. So in other words

You're mocking and denigrating people because of their deeply held faith.

For shame.

[trotsky]

50. You've hit the nail on the head.

Blatant, naked, raw hypocrisy lies at the core of the usage of this terminology.

[skepticscott]

45. So why promote the use of a new word

that incorporates "Christian" right into it, if not to imply that these people are only sorta Christians, but not really true Christians, the right kind of Christians? The term "religious right" has served well for a long time to distinguish them politically, but this term is intended to smear their faith, rather than their politics.

[AlbertCat]

24. A made up word?

[cbayer]

26. Apparently made up by William Safire.

[rexcat]

32. William Safire...

a libertarian conservative. Not much else to say here!

[cbayer]

35. Perhaps, but also an amazing wordsmith.

[rexcat]

36. You might think it is amazing wordsmith...

but I will respectfully disagree on this. I think it harks to the NTS fallacy.

For example, you have stated that Neil deGrasse Tyson is an agnostic therefore end of argument even though others see him differently. In the same vein, if someone calls themselves a Christian how can you dispute that. Also by calling them a Christianist would it not be somewhat hypocritical on your part or at the least, inconsistent?

[cbayer]

38. I see Neil deGrasse Tyson exactly as he describes himself, no more no less.

I don't dispute someone calling themselves a christian, I just like the ability to distinguish within that category. The NTS fallacy argument is stale, as I have never taken the position that someone is not really a christian. I have, however, made distinctions between different kinds of christians.

Why would that be a problem? Are you an Ayn Rand kind of atheist or a Dawkins kind of atheist? Are they different?

[rexcat]

40. Both Dawkins and Rand are/were Atheists...

They both did not believe in a god or gods as I don't. Rand's political views are more then likely different from Dawkins but their political views have nothing to do with their religious views in this context. Rand was also pro-choice as is Dawkins and myself. Does that mean we agree with everything Rand has said? Very poor analogy on your part and I don't really care one way or another if you lump us all together. That would be your bad.

I can see that the NTS fallacy would be stale on your part since you seem to embrace it so much. Let me restate that when you use the word "Christianist," it appears that you are using it in a derogatory manner and is either hypocritical on your part or in the least, inconsistent. Please by all means explain if I have this wrong.

[skepticscott]

46. Sorry, but NTS is still a fallacy

No matter how many time you try to use it and get called on it. It doesn't get "stale", despite your lame attempts to dismiss it (along with any other criticism of your posts).

[orpupilofnature57]

27. Fundamentalist or Fundies

Nice observations on the contrary doctrine of Usurping pretenders, thats why I trust atheists more than people that make it up as they go along.

[onager]

43. Why...whatever you say it is, of course!

"The citizen of Oceania is not allowed to know anything of the tenets of the other two philosophies, but he is taught to execrate them as barbarous outrages upon morality and common sense. Actually, the three philosophies are barely distinguishable…"

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

47. Here is a specific example

I know a man who claims to be a Catholic. This man whole-heartedly supports the waterboarding of prisoners at Gitmo. He agrees that it is torture, but he supports it anyway. The Catholic Church, both Popes and ecumenical councils, has said that torture is malum in se -- "evil in itself".

Thus, this man is deliberately and knowingly disobeying Catholic moral teachings and meets the definition of a Christianist.

[eqfan592]

51. Maybe he's just more old school Catholic? (nt)

[trotsky]

52. So is every Catholic who uses birth control.

Christianists, every single one of them.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

57. Not quite

Last edited Sun Aug 26, 2012, 09:37 AM - Edit history (1)

According to the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, section 25, a teaching from a properly constituted ecumenical council (such as Vatican II) is infallible. Another of Vatican II's documents, Gaudium et Spes, section 27, says that torture is intrinsece malum -- "intrinsically evil". As Pope John Paul II wrote in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, section 80, torture is one of a group of acts which are immoral

always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object".

Now, while the teaching against torture is in the group of infallible teachings, the teaching against contraception is not. It is part of the "ordinary papal magisterium". Now, the Vatican is trying to pretend that ordinary papal magisterium is de facto infallible, but they are simply wrong to do so (the term is "creeping infallibility&quot . The ordinary papal magisterium is to be listened to with respect, given every benefit of the doubt, but is ultimately up to the individual Catholic to accept or reject.

Thus, the two teachings are not equivalent in how they must be received by Catholics.

[eqfan592]

58. I thank you for the well thought out reply.

But I have to admit, this deeper understanding of how the Catholic church works has actually made me even happier that I'm not religious in any way, shape or form, much less Catholic.

[trotsky]

61. Wrong.

They aren't following Catholic teachings.

Ergo, they are Christianists. You don't get to move the goalposts.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

65. But I am not moving the goalposts

I said that there are two types of Catholic teachings: Fallible and infallible. The teaching against torture is an infallible teaching, the teaching against contraception is not.

Perhaps if you were to have actually read what I wrote, you would not suffer your confusion about it.

[trotsky]

68. Yes, you are, and did.

You said nothing about two types of teachings in your first post.

You added that after your claim was shown to be ridiculous.

That's called moving the goalposts. See post #67.

[skepticscott]

69. Nah, he hasn't moved the goalposts

He just rotated the field 90 degrees.

[trotsky]

70. LOL

What a clever move - didn't see that one coming!

[skepticscott]

71. Damn, I SO need

football season to start

[trotsky]

72. I'm going to suggest the field rotation tactic to my Vikings.

Maybe they might sneak out an extra victory or two and NOT go 1-15 this year.

[skepticscott]

73. Well, even at 1-15

They'd have a better winning percentage than the Serious Theologians here.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

77. Ah, I am being assaulted by illiterate bigots who refuse to read

As Molly Ivins said about being attacked by Rush Limbaugh, it's like being gummed by newts.

Why don't you bother addressing what I wrote, instead of looking like idiots? Of course, addressing me honestly would require thought, and bigots (such as you and trotsky) prefer not to think.

[Heddi]

79. alert results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Your alert was received
At Tue Aug 28, 2012, 08:12 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

Ah, I am being assaulted by illiterate bigots who refuse to read
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=43477

The reason for the alert was:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

You added the following comments:

calling a poster an ignorant bigot is a personal attack, especially when the offending party has been on du less than a month. this whole post is. PA and should be hidden

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this post at Tue Aug 28, 2012, 08:03 AM, and voted 3-3 to keep it.

Thank you.

[Goblinmonger]

81. Not so lucky on round 2

At Tue Aug 28, 2012, 10:15 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Obviously, you did not read my post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=43475

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

personal attack

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Aug 28, 2012, 10:40 AM, and the Jury voted 6-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Enough with the personal attacks. Make your point and go on. Sheesh.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: .
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: A freeper hiding behind a military ribbon.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: I think the word "idiot" is over the top. Maybe the poster could be asked to reword.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: This type of attitude makes DU (and the Religion forum) suck.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[skepticscott]

84. Because what you wrote didn't address the question posed

It was merely a long winded attempt to avoid answering a question that you know you can't answer simply and honestly without sinking your own argument. You did the same duck and dodge with trotsky's question.

And here's the thing...every intelligent person reading this can see that, and I suspect that even you know it deep down. If a simple answer to the questions:

Is it a "Catholic moral teaching" (whether fallible or infallible) that the use of artificial contraception is wrong and sinful?

Is your new claim now that only a Catholic who disobeys infallible teachings is a "Christianist?"

would support your argument, you'd be only too happy to give it (even again, as you claim). So have at it.

Oh, and btw...if you think that bluster and insult will let you bluff your way out of this, it's been tried here. A lot. Doesn't fly.

[trotsky]

78. The shame here is that you have changed what you said,

and rather just admit it, you have to hurl insults aimed at belittling the intelligence of those who just called you out on your tactics. Would Jesus approve of this behavior?

Your first post made NO distinction between the types of teaching. Go back, and YOU read it again. Here's the whole thing just to make it easy:

47. Here is a specific example

I know a man who claims to be a Catholic. This man whole-heartedly supports the waterboarding of prisoners at Gitmo. He agrees that it is torture, but he supports it anyway. The Catholic Church, both Popes and ecumenical councils, has said that torture is malum in se -- "evil in itself".

Thus, this man is deliberately and knowingly disobeying Catholic moral teachings and meets the definition of a Christianist.

There. I've just read what you wrote once again. Hopefully you did too. Can you point to the part where you distinguish between infallible and non-infallible teachings? I'd even be willing to give you partial credit if you could point to an *infallible* ruling on torture.

Or will you just insult me again?

[skepticscott]

62. So are you saying

that it is NOT a "Catholic moral teaching" that the use of artificial contraception is wrong and sinful? Because if it is, then every single Catholic who is "deliberately and knowingly disobeying" that teaching meets your criteria for being a "Christianist".

So which is it? Can't have it both ways.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

64. I said, quite clearly and distinctly,

that the teaching against contraception was part of the "ordinary papal magisterium", and thus is not an infallible teaching.

Here is a short introduction to the types of Catholic teaching. First, the teaching office of the Church is called the "magisterium", from the Latin magister -- "teacher".

Basically, there are two sorts of teaching, infallible and not infallible. The qualifications for an infallible teaching are set out in section 25 of Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium -- "Light of the Nations" -- online at [link:http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vat
ican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html |here] and other places. LG 25 says that there are three modes of infallible teaching: (1) an ex cathedra pronouncement from the pope, (2) a solemn declaration of a council, and (3) the pope and the college of bishops exercising "the universal and ordinary magisterium".

The first two are fairly straightforward: Ex cathedra -- "from the chair", ie, the papal throne, pronouncements have been made exactly twice: Pius IX's proclamation of the Immaculate Conception in 1864 and Pius XII's proclamation of the Assumption of Mary in 1950. A decree from a properly constituted ecumenical council is also easy -- LG is one, for example.

The third, the universal and ordinary magisterium, is described in LG 25 as

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.

For reasons of ecclesiastical politics, the meetings of the bishops have been few and completely dominated by the Pope. There hasn't been one for over 25 years, and the last few were exercises in futility -- essentially, the Vatican presented its position and forbade meaningful debate on it.

As for non-infallible papal teaching -- the "ordinary papal magisterium" -- and teachings by individual bishops, LG 25 says

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

"Religious assent" means that the faithful are to read the teaching carefully, pray for guidance, give the teaching the benefit of any possible doubt. However, if one cannot accept the teaching, one should reject it. Thomas Aquinas says that a conscience, even an erring conscience, must be followed, even if it goes against Church teaching. (See his Summa Theologica, I, question 79, article 13.)

When he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before becoming Pope Benedict XVI, the then Cardinal Ratzinger tried to push a new category of teaching, the "definitive teaching". These teachings are intended to be de facto infallible, even though they do not meet the de jure definition. The term for this sort of thing is "creeping infallibility", and has no support either historically or theologically.

This just touches the surface of a fairly complex subject, and if you have questions, I shall attempt to answer them.

[skepticscott]

66. You're going to fit in well here

There are apparently no limits you won't go to in order to avoid answering a simple, direct question.

Is it a moral teaching of the Catholic church (fallible, infallible or otherwise)? There are three possible answers: Yes, no and I don't know. Which is it?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

76. I answered it

You might not like my answer, but you cannot claim that I did not answer.

[skepticscott]

83. No, you dodged it

But prove me wrong...show everyone your answer, clearly and unambiguously:

Is it a "Catholic moral teaching" (either fallible or infallible) that the use of artificial contraception is wrong and sinful? Yes or no?

Any more than a one word answer will be transparent to all as more dodging.

[trotsky]

67. What you've done is called moving the goalposts.

Here's what you first said, in the post that started this subthread:

this man is deliberately and knowingly disobeying Catholic moral teachings and meets the definition of a Christianist

Only after it was pointed out to you that pretty much every Catholic was a "Christianist" due to disobeying particular Catholic moral teachings, did you then push this new theory that it had to be an "infallible" teaching.

So were you wrong earlier? Is your new claim now that only a Catholic who disobeys infallible teachings is a "Christianist?" Because we can explore that too. I just want to lock down those goalposts so it's clear from the outset.

[Thats my opinion]

80. his is a very clear analysis

But you will find on "Religion" continual attacks on that kind of thinking. I may disagree with the implications of your post, but I admire the scholarly way you went about the definition. My advice is simply to ignore many of the side-swipes you may receive and concentrate on a rational discussion of he subject at hand.

[skepticscott]

85. It may have been a clear analysis of SOMETHING

But it did not address the issue at hand, even remotely.

But if I'm wrong, you can prove me wrong easily. If his was a "very clear analysis" of the point being raised, then from reading it and finding it so clear and unambiguous, YOU should be able to tell us what his answer to this question is:

Is it a "Catholic moral teaching" (whether fallible or infallible) that the use of artificial contraception is wrong and sinful?

Of course we all know that you will, as usual, duck, dodge and avoid any direct response, and fall back on calling all of this "bullying", "harassment" and a "personal attack". Assuming you dare to respond at all.

[trotsky]

88. Hey, guess what.

Despite his "very clear analysis," he was (thankfully) blocked from the thread due to personal attacks.

For you to tell him to carry on and "ignore ... the side-swipes" is thus quite hilarious, when it was HIM doing the side-swiping. Skepticscott and I have been trying to have a rational discussion, but instead we were called names and insulted repeatedly.

I think you should read this thread a lot more closely to get to know the person you are defending.

[Heddi]

89. Wait, you consider this response by that poster

to be "scholarly" and "rational discussion"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=43477

"Ah, I am being assaulted by illiterate bigots who refuse to read

As Molly Ivins said about being attacked by Rush Limbaugh, it's like being gummed by newts.

Why don't you bother addressing what I wrote, instead of looking like idiots? Of course, addressing me honestly would require thought, and bigots (such as you and trotsky) prefer not to think."

How are those personal attacks at all "scholarly" and part of any "rational discussion"?

Seriously? You defend this? You think it's perfectly acceptable for another poster (who has been here less than a month) to call other posters
-- illiterate bigots
-- who refuse to read
-- consider their responses akin to "being gummed by newts"
-- calling another poster directly a bigot who prefers not to think

There is no ambiguity in that post. That post, despite the 3-3 vote to leave it, is full of over the top, unnecessary personal attacks.

And you praise the poster for being rational?

I thought you and your daughter, who is a host of this forum, were on a mission to make the Religion forum a place where everyone could feel welcome in discussion. The fact that you come to his defense, and the forum host who wags her finger at the slightest transgression of posters who are known atheists (but has no such admonition for posters who are known religionists who make attacks) is suspiciously absent further adds to the proof that you're not *really* interested in making the Religion forum a place where all people feel welcome to participate in discussion. It's like you're just saying that. You don't really mean it. Because if you did, you wouldn't be praising this poster on their well-reasoned arguments while ignoring the GLARING personal attacks made towards other posters

That post is not a way to make ANYONE feel welcome.

I wonder who this poster's previous incarnation was.

[skepticscott]

92. +1000

Not that you'll get the kind of rational and substantive response you deserve. More likely that you'll get put on ignore by the whole family for daring to expose their agenda.

[LeftishBrit]

48. I had always assumed that it meant the Christian equivalent of an 'Islamist'..

i.e. someone who seeks to impose a reactionary version of Christianity into state law, and places this ahead of principles of democracy and of human kindness and justice. Pat Robertson and James Dobson are noted examples.

[cbayer]

49. I like this definition.

It's the use of the doctrine to advance your own cause.

[Angry Dragon]

53. perhaps a Christianist is just a liar and really is a follower of Satan

add: 53 replies and no response from the OP
very rude in my opinion

[jeepnstein]

54. Sadly, they sometimes can't tell the difference.

More time praying, less time shouting, that's always a good place to start.

[Evoman]

55. You are all christianists.....every last fucking one of you.

Because none of you ever follow all of Jesus's teachings.....hell, you can't even agree on his teachings.

Make up all the names you want....I'll call you whatever you come up with.

[cbayer]

56. Do you make any distinction at all between those on the religious right and liberal/

progressive christians?

Between those that use the bible to pursue political objectives like DOMA and those that use it to promote civil rights and justice?

Between Akin and MLK?

[Evoman]

59. Yes, but I don't group them according to "who follows Jesus's teachings" better. That's stupid.

Calling them left wing or right wing is good enough for me. All of them are christians as far as I'm concerned.

[cbayer]

60. That argument makes sense to me and as long as we can make a distinction,

I've got no problem.

[skepticscott]

63. Uh, so civil rights and justice

AREN'T political objectives? Please. Do you even think about what you type?

[cleanhippie]

74. OH, lookie, Charles dumps another load of crap in the group and then runs away...

Charles, if you are not going to respond to anyone at all or answer any questions, why do you feel the need to post an OP at all?

[skepticscott]

87. Funny how every member

of this cast of characters has gone into hiding in this thread, after being confronted with questions that were a bit too pointed for comfort (after first, characteristically, trying their usual tactics to dodge and deflect).

[trotsky]

90. Clearly, there is only lip service paid to the desire to dialog and learn from each other.

We ask questions, they scurry away after flinging personal insults.

Oh and don't forget, it's the atheists who are being uncivil. It's not like the theists are calling people "illiterate bigots" and "idiots," right?

Oops. They are.

[skepticscott]

91. Hey, it wouldn't even be so bad

if they actually mixed some facts, logical arguments and direct responses to simple questions in with the snark and insults. But they can't, because all they have is the latter.

[cleanhippie]

95. You're right, they have nothing of substance whatsoever.

They have become a parody of what they claim they want.

It's really quite laughable.