Chris Dorner and Moral Relativism

[dandingo]

I don’t see name calling as an effective method of evangelizing. What is a “true Christian” anyway? It seems like a meaningless term, supported by the reactions you have gotten to using it.

I don’t understand your last statement.

Our objective ought to be to win converts, not arguments.

First of all, you jumped into a discussion I was having with TimeEntrance with quite the abruptness, so I’m attempting to answer both of you simultaneously and ask genuine answers as respectfully as possibly and am looking for genuine answers. I’m not calling anyone names.

Obviously, a ‘true Christian’ is a very subjective term, hence the ensuing debate. But if I see someone committing heinous acts in the name of God, I’m going to assume they aren’t a ‘true Christian’. Also, obviously, I can’t see their heart and know if they’ve repented for said acts. This is all hypothetical, of course.

In no way am I attempting to ‘win arguments’. I’m doing my best to understand the current arguments that this debate has risen. This is the Philosophy section, correct? I am allowed to question things that arise, right?

I’m not sure how to answer that as I’m not a formally trained philosopher and my grasp on theology is slim.

But where I was going with this is consciously leaving the faith for another religion or no religion at all. This has been in my understanding what would make a former Catholic no longer Catholic–at least in a way we can understand it using language and classifications.

One distinguishing mark between Catholicism and Protestantism as I’ve always understood it revolved around the concept of sin and Visible Church and Invisible Church.

With the Catholic “instincts of the faith,” a phrase I’ve gotten from Fr. Andrew Greeley, viewing the Church as both, and the Protestants viewing the Church as the latter.

I would personally regard the man in your scenario as Christian. I’ve always identified and classified the Ku Klux Klan as Christians. Even the ones from decades ago that commit some heinous crimes.

Bear in mind the Catholic Church from hierarchy to clergy to lay people participated in some barbaric, cruel, killings in the name of God. Namely, the once common form of death penalty by burning people at the stake. This was prescribed in the Old Testament too, so, there is reason to believe the ancient Hebrew Jews practiced this for of public execution as well.

While the Inquisition is blown out of proportions in many ways, and while I personally believe the Inquisition throughout Latin America prevented the rise of the equivalent of the KKK, I still can’t reconcile myself to burning people at the stake. But then I’m a product of the 20th and 21st Century too.

I’m no Philosopher, either, but I appreciate the arguments that are raised because they allow me to either better defend my points of view or debunk my incorrect understanding of a certain subject. I also appreciate the civil discourse between us. I’m doing my best to understand the arguments for the ‘True Scotsman’ theory instead of just accepting it because it has been established as a somewhat valid argument.

My only point is that if I see someone commit heinous acts in the name of God and is clearly not repentant, I’m not going to include them in what I have come to understand as a Christian. If someone like Hitler were to say that due to him being baptized Catholic, God has granted him the right to slaughter millions of Jews, I’m going to denounce what that person is doing as Catholic, and I’m positive that the vast majority of Catholics would do the same.