Pat Robertson, a "Christian".

If  a person believes that they are Christian and if they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ then they are a Christian whether they say or do hateful things.  I don't see that anyone has the right to judge other people on their 'good' Christianity.   Religion is a personal belief.  Nobody gets to decide whether or not you're worthy of believing it.

Surely it is possible (I know it is possible; I see and hear people doing it every day) to discuss whether a person's behaviour and words are more or less Christlike, whether they are like the Good Samaritan or whether they are like the Levite, whether they are a true believer or a whited sepulchre? Such discussions are the very meat and drink of what it means to be a Christian, I always thought when I was one. If such debate and discussion were to be suppressed on the grounds that a person's beliefs are "private" and therefore beyond discussion, then any kind of Christian moral or ethical dialogue becomes impossible, doesn't it?

Personally I believe that Pat Robertson's words make him like the Levite, and I hereby declare that he is a very thoroughly whited sepulchre.

Surely it is possible (I know it is possible; I see and hear people doing it every day) to discuss whether a person's behaviour and words are more or less Christlike, whether they are like the Good Samaritan or whether they are like the Levite, whether they are a true believer or a whited sepulchre? Such discussions are the very meat and drink of what it means to be a Christian, I always thought. If such debate and discussion were to be suppressed on the grounds that a person's beliefs are "private" and therefore beyond discussion, then any kind of moral or ethical dialogue becomes impossible, doesn't it?

Personally I believe that Pat Robertson's words make him like the Levite, and I hereby declare that he is a very thoroughly whited sepulchre.

I'm not trying to stop any debate and I don't personally see how my saying that I don't feel that anyone has the right to decide who is and isn't a Christian is stopping ethical or moral dialogue.  Being a Christian is in fact believing in Christ as your savior.  Because someone also believes some hateful things doesn't stop them being a Christian. 

To extrapolate - would you say that Jews, Muslims or Hindus who say or do terrible things that seem to contradict the moral teachings of their religion aren't really Jews, Muslims or Hindus?

Being a Christian is in fact believing in Christ as your savior.  Because someone also believes some hateful things doesn't stop them being a Christian. 

That's a fair point, the problem is that so many people use the term "Christian" as a synonym for "good."  

I'm not trying to stop any debate and I don't personally see how my saying that I don't feel that anyone has the right to decide who is and isn't a Christian is stopping ethical or moral dialogue.  Being a Christian is in fact believing in Christ as your savior.  Because someone also believes some hateful things doesn't stop them being a Christian. 

Indeed. Jesus wasn't crucified to save only the "good" people. You can be very bad indeed and still be saved. People are Christian or not (it's a binary, yes/no thing) but their behaviour and professed beliefs can be anywhere between utterly Christian and not Christian at all.

To extrapolate - would you say that Jews, Muslims or Hindus who say or do terrible things that seem to contradict the moral teachings of their religion aren't really Jews, Muslims or Hindus?

I can't speak for others, but in my opinion those people would still be Jews, Muslims or Hindus. They're just extremists ... or nutcases, if you prefer. And those people would be nutcases no matter what religion they chose. But it still doesn't take away the fact that they're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or whatever.

That's a fair point, the problem is that so many people use the term "Christian" as a synonym for "good."  

Oooh, that's one of my pet peeves.  

People are Christian or not (it's a binary, yes/no thing) but their behaviour and professed beliefs can be anywhere between utterly Christian and not Christian at all.

But 'utterly Christian' or 'not Christian at all' based on whose definition? Who gets to decide? I'm sure Pat Robertson sees himself as utterly butterly Christian!

But 'utterly Christian' or 'not Christian at all' based on whose definition? Who gets to decide? I'm sure Pat Robertson sees himself as utterly butterly Christian!

My definition. If I'm the person considering the behaviour in question, it is I who gets to decide.

Anyway, if we say that a person is a "Christian" if they say that they are, if they have checked the "Saved" box in their hearts, then being a Christian doesn't mean very much really. It is the other stuff that we are not only entitled to consider, that we should (indeed must) consider.

My definition. If I'm the person considering the behaviour in question, it is I who gets to decide.

Anyway, if we say that a person is a "Christian" if they say that they are, if they have checked the "Saved" box in their hearts, then being a Christian doesn't mean very much really. It is the other stuff that we are not only entitled to consider, that we should (indeed must) consider.

But why?  What gives us the right?

My definition. If I'm the person considering the behaviour in question, it is I who gets to decide.

So if you believe you're an utter Christian, but someone else doesn't think you are ... then you're not?

It's all a bit pointless really.

At the risk of being flamed, I think you were possibly right when you said:

then being a Christian doesn't mean very much really.

But why?  What gives us the right?

God did, when he gave us a mind and a conscience.

God did, when he gave us a mind and a conscience.

To decide who gets to be a Christian?  Are you sure?  Judge not lest ye be judged

God did, when he gave us a mind and a conscience.

1.  Where does that leave non-Christians. A bit of a narrow-minded view, imho.

2.  So ... Pat Robertson also has a conscience and the 'God given' ability to judge whether you're a Christian or not? That's a bit of a tautology!

1.  Where does that leave non-Christians. A bit of a narrow-minded view, imho.

I certainly have to agree!  Insulting not only to non-Christians, but to those who don't beleive in a god that's a he or even only just one god.  Insulting to atheists as well.

So ... Pat Robertson also has a conscience and the 'God given' ability to judge whether you're a Christian or not? That's a bit of a tautology!

Well, it just shows what a lot of nonsense it is. I thought people would pick up that but it seems not.

To decide who gets to be a Christian?  Are you sure?  Judge not lest ye be judged

Where does that leave Pat Robinson then?