Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
I said "otherwise" good Christians. This is another example of how you use the fallacy of the extreme to try to make a point.
"Unity" is just another word you use to condemn others. I don't think you really have a clue what it is. To my observation your understanding of everything is superficial. I think you are sadly deceived. I don't think you have any idea what God is really about. All you have are teachings that make you feel like you are better than everyone else. Otherwise you are empty.
I've never heard anything in your personal testimony that leads me to believe you have a depth of relationship with God.
As I've said, if you are a example of what the LCM has become, I'm so glad I'm no longer there.
|
Your view is unbiblical and flawed (I will explain below). It is unbiblical because in the Bible Paul no where defines a church by its quality. Neither does Jesus in Revelation - even churches which were luke warm were still considered churches.
I used the extreme case to show that your view is not so good, it is not robust and is too subjective. The problem with your view, is that it cannot handle the extremes. Defining a "good Christian" is too subjective.
A good definition of church would be able to handle the extreme cases. Just like a good car can handle the extreme road conditions.
Your view hinges upon defining a "good Christian". My view defines church independently of the quality or quantity of the church. Your view depends upon a church's quality, which is unbiblical. In the bible, churches had many problems, but they were still churches. Paul still commanded them not to divide into sub-groups, into sects. Corinth for example, had problems with immorality, but Paul no where told them to form a sect of "moral people".
For example, in my view it is possible (though unlikely) for a true local church to degrade (in quality) to become 90% LGBT. I still call it a church, if it is based upon the bible's definition of a church, but you would not call it a church because they are not "good Christians". So your view is flawed.
Also, suppose there is a perfect sect, or cult, full of "good Christians", you would call that a church. Again your basis for defining a church by its quality of "good" or "bad" is flawed.
The 12 disciples, had problems, Peter, James, Judas etc, each had their peculiarities and shortcomings. We cannot say that Peter, James, John or Judas were "good disciples". In your view, they would not be called disciples, because they are not good. In my view, they are disciples regardless of whether they are good or bad.
So your view based upon church quality cannot handle the extreme cases, so should be rejected as a flawed and inferior view.