Got to admit it, you're right. When I reread my post I came to the same
conclusion. What I meant was if an individual KNEW his religion was false,
be it Hindu, Buddhist or Christian, then he would be a pseudo
representative of his doctrine.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Ed Brayton <cynic@net-link.net>
> To: Ron Chitwood <chitw@flash.net>
> Cc: Stephen Jones <sejones@ibm.net>; Evolution Reflector
<evolution@calvin.edu>
> Subject: Re: Destructive criticism of Christian apologists (was
Denigrating falsehood)
> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 4:11 PM
>
> Ron Chitwood wrote:
> >
> > >>>One can BE a
> > Christian even if Christianity is false<<<
> >
> > No, one can't. A pseudo-Christian, perhaps, but not a Christian. Come
to
> > think of it, why would you even want to. Jesus is either a liar or a
> > lunatic, isn't he?
>
> I'm not going to get into a debate over the validity of Christianity on
> this list. It is not the appropriate forum for that discussion. But the
> validity of Christianity has exactly NOTHING to do with whether one can
> be a Christian or not. By your absurd logic, there is no such thing as a
> Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim since those religions are not true. One can
> believe in something that is not true. Hence, one can BE a Christian
> even if Christianity if false, just as one can be a Hindu even if
> Hinduism is false. Any contrary claim is simply semantic nonsense.
>
> Ed