Genuine Christians vs. non-Christians impersonating Christians

[HelenM]

Originally posted by Calzaer
Helen, this is EXACTLY why I asked my original question in the first place.

No, it is not exactly why you asked your original question. I'll repeat my earlier comment on that:

Originally posted by HelenM
[Your other thread] was a discussion about which of the people who call themselves Christians and believe themselves to be, really are.

It wasn't about people who know they are not Christians but pretend they are for their own amusement.

If you don't yet see the difference, I suggest you keep rereading what I wrote above until you do.

How do I tell a fake from the real thing? YOU obviously have some criteria. Just give it to me.

There seems no point in addressing this until you sort out your confusion between someone who claims to be a Christian, thinking they are, and someone who claims to be one, knowing they are not, for their own amusement.

Unless it's one of those pathetic "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" cop-outs?

Oh, I could define it if I wanted to. I'm just not sure there's any point. Wouldn't you rather ask one of the atheists who has recently proffered an opinion that someone is pretending to be a Christian? Wouldn't you be more likely to listen to them than me, a person whose judgment is clouded by my theism?

Helen

[HelenM]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
I'm twisted around here because I can't tell an inaccurate negative stereotype from an accurate negative Christian.

I'm glad you said that. That's exactly why I'm not sure there's any point in trying to explain why I thought a particular person was pretending to be a Christian, rather than a genuine Christian.

A number of people have guessed that this guy is a sock puppet because he is stereotypical.

That's not really why I thought he was. It has more to do with the number of things about his site that could be making fun of Christians. I could be wrong, of course.

I incorrectly thought that he was the really old minister from the URL also because he's stereotypical.
Is he the real McCoy or what, and how do you tell? If we can't rely on sterotypes what should we think when presented with a stereotype?

You seem in favor of stereotypes. Are there any atheist stereotypes that you think are good and helpful? If so please share them with me. If not, then maybe that might give you reason to reconsider whether other stereotypes are helpful or not.

Helen

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by HelenM
Are there any <snip> stereotypes that you think are good and helpful?
I thought the point of a stereotype was so you could tell when someone was parodying.

I'm with Helen: the fact that PR is so stereotypical strongly indicates he is a fake.

Of course if he's the real deal then Biff is right.

I love reducing arguments to mere investigations of fact.

:)

[HelenM]

Note: for anyone wondering where the posts I replied to in this thread came from, they're in How can you deny the glory of the Lord? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71161)

Helen

[Rational BAC]

I don't know for sure if the original poster on that other thread is yanking everybody's chain or not. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt as far as what they say they are is what they are.

But he sure does make lousy arguments. Just the kind of simplistic, very tired and very old and easily defeated arguments that most atheists just love to think----- "Wow I got this guy---this will be a turkey shoot".

I lean toward agreeing with Helen

[diana]

With my disclaimer being that I didn't slog through all of that thread (I don't feel like watching an innocent being the victim of a feeding frenzy this morning) and only browsed through the website, I think he's for real.

Part of this is based on the fact that I was raised in a sect in which everyone believed exactly what he's preaching. Stereotypes don't just make themselves up, y'know.

The other bit is that no word or phrase at the site cued my "poser" alarms.

I think he's for real. Just woefully undereducated, misinformed, and fixated on his basic assumptions that God exists, the Bible is his word, and the Bible is literal.

I see no point in rising to the challenge he poses, as he makes it clear on his main page that he won't even entertain the possibility that the bible could be wrong or even figurative:

If something condradicts the Bible, the Bible overrules it, no questions about it.

(However, I would like to thank Mr. Richardson for providing a link to this site. There is no such thing as bad publicity. ;) Further, I'd say he gave us his highest recommendation simply by his condemnation of us--considering the source.)

d

[CaptainOfOuterSpace]

Originally posted by diana
I think he's for real. Just woefully undereducated, misinformed, and fixated on his basic assumptions that God exists, the Bible is his word, and the Bible is literal. hear, hear.

[Starboy]

I agree with diana. Where I come from, in the circles this guy would travel in, he would be an intellectual giant. Also what he is spewing would be just like mother's milk. Just give me that old time religion, give me that old time religion, give me that old time religion, its good enough for me.

Starboy

[Wayne P]

Helen,

So far it seems to me that all you have is your intuition that Paul Richardson is impersonating a Christian. I am still uncertain as to how you know this. Just because someone spews ideas that look like a stereotype to you does not mean they aren't who they say they are. Certain Theists around here say, basically, the same things and yet you are certain that they ARE what they say they are.

On the other thread with Calzaer, Theists were all over the place claiming that there is no single definition of being a Christian, and that we should all just accept what they call themselves as being true.

Could you please help me understand this seemingly contradictory stance? Is it just that he makes Theists look bad, and that is the problem?

Thanks in advance for your help in this.

[Wizardry]

We're not going to be having a thread about whether or not Paul Richardson is an imposter Christian. That's personal commentary and explicitly disallowed by the new rules.

If this thread is going to remain open, it will have to remain on the abstract topic as per the OP and not venture into speculation regarding any of IIDB's members.

-Wizardry
GRD Moderator

[HelenM]

Originally posted by Wayne P
Helen,

So far it seems to me that all you have is your intuition that Paul Richardson is impersonating a Christian. I am still uncertain as to how you know this. Just because someone spews ideas that look like a stereotype to you does not mean they aren't who they say they are. Certain Theists around here say, basically, the same things and yet you are certain that they ARE what they say they are.

On the other thread with Calzaer, Theists were all over the place claiming that there is no single definition of being a Christian, and that we should all just accept what they call themselves as being true.

Could you please help me understand this seemingly contradictory stance? Is it just that he makes Theists look bad, and that is the problem?

Thanks in advance for your help in this.

Please read what I wrote above, which was already repeated from another thread, about the difference between Calzaer's thread and the issue of whether someone who says they are a Christian is telling the truth.

If I ever think someone is impersonating a Christian, it's based on analysis of what they're written, not solely on 'intuition'.

But it seems pointless to me trying to explain what sorts of things would lead me to that conclusion, because they have to do with the difference between what a given person writes and what I would expect from a Christian. It's clear to me that there are posters here whose expectations of Christians are quite different to mine, so they wouldn't agree with my opinion on what seems more indicative of parody than the words of a genuine Christian. Whatever I would list, they would argue "Ah, but I've seen Christians like that and more so".

And anyway I could be wrong. ;)

Helen

[Wayne P]

Helen,

Thanks for answering you're a doll.

Happy Holidays to you and yours.

[King Rat]

I don't understand how HelenM can tell the difference. 90% of the time I read a post from Magus55 it sounds like an atheist posing as a christian.

[Howard]

Originally posted by HelenM
Wouldn't you rather ask one of the atheists who has recently proffered an opinion that someone is pretending to be a Christian? Wouldn't you be more likely to listen to them than me, a person whose judgment is clouded by my theism?

Helen I hate it when some theist is the voice of reason around here.

[HelenM]

Originally posted by King Rat
I don't understand how HelenM can tell the difference. 90% of the time I read a post from Magus55 it sounds like an atheist posing as a christian.

I may be wrong. I just thought that one particular site sounded like a parody, because of comments such as the following:

What is everyone's plan to celebrate the birth of our Saviour? On Christmas day, I am staying in and putting 15 good hours of straight worship to Jesus Christ on His birthday. What are your plans to celebrate the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ?

I've never heard a Christian say anything like this before, so I thought it was a joke parodying Christians, but maybe not :eek:

A site that combines such extreme statements as the above, with minimal or no indication of that person having a love for God and other people would make me wonder. Plus a general lack of depth in what is shared.

But it's not inconceivable that a Christian who has a rather extreme personality type and/or is a relatively new convert and/or is rather young, might have a site that I might mistake for a parody. I'm not infallible ;)

Helen

[Calzaer]

Helen, I'm really VERY angry with you. Seriously. I spent weeks trying to get someone, anyone, to give me ANY sort of criteria on how to tell a Christian from a non-Christian. Beliefs, actions, ANYTHING. And you refused. Now you claim to have some sort of criteria, but you still refuse to elaborate on it.

To hell with you. I don't [] care anymore. You can take your mysterious little secrets and [go somewhere else]. I'm through trying to figure it out. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

First you tell me I'm supposed to just assume anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian, and then you enter into that thread all condescending because we couldn't tell that a person claiming to be a Christian wasn't a Christian. Hypocricy at its [] finest. [Thanks for setting such a wonderful example of how Christians are supposed to bring enlightenment to the masses.]

[Edited to remove swear words]

[seebs]

Calzaer, you were looking for very concrete things that you could test for immediately; Helen is describing patterns or attitudes. These things are quite different.

[Calzaer]

What part of "ANY criteria" doesn't include "patterns or attitudes"??

It's downright MEAN to tell someone one thing ("if they say they're Christian, just assume their Christian") and then come down on you for doing what they tell you to do ("I can't believe you think this guy's a real Christian!"). I'm sick of being yanked around. Either there is a criteria or there's not, and if it's some happy little secret you're just jerking my chain with, you can [get over] yourself.

[HelenM]

Originally posted by Calzaer
Helen, I'm really VERY angry with you. Seriously. I spent weeks trying to get someone, anyone, to give me ANY sort of criteria on how to tell a Christian from a non-Christian. Beliefs, actions, ANYTHING. And you refused. Now you claim to have some sort of criteria, but you still refuse to elaborate on it.

But I did give some criteria in the post above the one where you wrote this. This thread is not supposed to be about an individual so I was trying to stay away from too many specifics and keep it more general.

I'm surprised you still don't seem to see the difference between someone who is pretending to be a Christian but knows they aren't one, and someone who is telling the truth as best they know it, when they claim to be a Christian.

Best wishes in dealing with your anger. I doubt it's really all about me. I know that when I've been as angry as you appear to have been early this morning, it's always been about more than the thing which most immediately triggered the anger.

Helen