Vjack has written a couple of hard-hitting posts about the Roman Catholic Church’s coverup of nearly a century’s worth of child abuse in Ireland. All of you atheists can guess what happened – a Christian came along and tossed out the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Yes, I know, it’s hard to believe anyone would say such a thing at an atheist blog. Nevertheless, it happened.
This Christian explained that the Church officials who abused the children and the Church officials who engaged in the coverup were Cardinal Christians. I howled with laughter. The word is “carnal,” not cardinal. In evangelical circles, the phrase “carnal Christian” describes a person who has been saved, but is not yet living a fully committed Christian life (as defined by holier-than-thou Christians, of course). A carnal Christian is one who is still too attached to worldly, fleshly things and not attached strongly enough to spiritual things. A carnal Christian is saved, but just barely. Consequently, the testimony of a carnal Christian is weak because his or her life is not filled and overflowing with the Holy Spirit’s power, and the carnal Christian’s life is frustrated because he or she has one foot in the world and one foot in heaven, so to speak. The carnal Christian needs to surrender completely to God in order to experience fully the presence of the Holy Spirit and the abundant joy of the Christian life. So they say. Hey, don’t look at me – I didn’t make up this stuff, I’m just passing it along.
In short, the problem is being carnal; it has nothing to do with cardinals (except, of course, for those Cardinals who are carnal).
It’s probably too much to ask that the fundogelicals who comment on atheist blogs master their own Christian-speak before hurling it at heathen heads. Those inclined to do so can stop in at the chapel if they need help learning their lingo.
– the chaplain