Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i dont have much use for christianity in general, but this is just stupid.
it shows no knowledge of either the traditions associated with christianity or of the social geography of the various strands in anything like real time.
what it seems to me like is a half-baked attempt to say that it is a good thing that no=one follows the message of the gospels, because doing so would make the accumulation of cash and commodities into a problem and we dont want that o no we dont want that. because if you think that way, you end up here:
which is a location deep in the heart of a jungle on one-dimensional stereotypes that i dont think is accessible for most folk, unless there is some procedure for paying admission and going on rides inside of ustwo's skull.
because it is only there that anyone can imagine that tradition that includes augustine, aquinas, william of ockham, pascal---one that kant leaned on, that hegel leaned on--one that includes a huge range and economic and/or social geographies--can be reduced to the above.
i dont quite understand how it follows from dismissing a religion (with good reason to my mind) that one can just say anything one wants, no matter how ridiculous.
|
You know whats more stupid? Not following a thread based on what I was responding to, which was Dave's little story as the 'only' Christian. Try reading it on context instead of doing your usual.
Oh and I have reported your post, maybe a moderator can fix it.
SecretMethod70 - I suppose what worries me a bit in this would be as our collective vision of god 'evolves' are we just forming a new version to keep us happy with modern sensibilities? The concept of an evolving god doesn't sit well with me, nor does our concept that we are gaining a greater understanding as time progresses. The first makes god a fuzzy being that has been around forever yet changes his stances in only a hundred years. The second allows for people to change god to what they feel it should be.
Back when I was young enough that I was still stuck going to church now and then, but old enough that I was an atheist for a while a priest said something I agreed with, and always felt was true. His sermon was that you couldn't pick and choose from your religion, either you had faith or you didn't and when you start to pick and choose based on what you like and dislike you are no longer following the religion. To me this always seemed self evident.
So if the new testament talks about fire and brimstone, pretty clearly, and someone says 'its a metaphor for being separated from god' I might LIKE his idea better, but we are talking about the apostles here, not the gospel of John Doe 19:73.
I know this one is firmly in the opinion realm, but thats just my thought on it.