mrklixx

A recent post by a member about "finding god" elicited a slew of responses by several self-proclaimed Christians. Now some of these people also frequently post expletive laden posts, hateful/angry posts, pornographic/sex posts, about being drunk/doing drugs, etc, etc.

So I have some questions about this.

1) Now I have been made aware (with a bit of hostility) that some "Christians" here believe that the Bible is not an accurate representation of the facts. So this may contribute to a different view of "sins" than mainstream Christianity holds. If this is so, why identify onself as part of a group that the general populace believes has a different set of standards and rules than what you believe? Is there such an overwhelming need to be a part of an established "name"?

2) In this "anything goes" Christianity, is there anything at all about your actions that sets you apart from the "heathens", other than professing to be a Christian?

3) For those that do believe in a more literal translation of the Bible, how do you justify regular participation in topics that, at the very least, are extremely un-Christ-like?


P.S. Before somebody says "Do a search, this topic was already discussed", I am not interested in what somebody had to say about this a year ago, I want to know what they think today.

__________________
This post is content. If you don't like it then you are not content. Or perhaps just incontinent.

This is not a link - Do not click here

I hate animated avatars.

martinguerre

"Now I have been made aware (with a bit of hostility) that some "Christians" here believe that the Bible is not an accurate representation of the facts."

Yes....no. Many of us don't take it "literally" as if such a thing were possible. If a person uses a literal interpretation as a strawman to attack Christianity as a whole...there may be some hurt feelings. There isn't liscense to attack in return, but there is an obligation to be clear...Christianity is not a monolith. but i take scripture very seriously...

"In this "anything goes" Christianity"

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus cussed, i think i can too. I try very hard not to aim those words at people in anger, tho.

"pornographic/sex posts" Read Song of Solomon. The first thing God does is create. Sex, eros, and the creative and connective nature of humanity is not in conflict with the spiritual.

"about being drunk/doing drugs, etc, etc."

Jesus drinks, people call him a drunk on many occasions. I try to make my use of chemicals (alcohol in my case) responsible. But there is no blanket prohibition of intoxicants by the bible. Wine flows through that book...

All of this doesn't mean i am a libertine. my beleif in God entails a committment to live a different life than i did. I am called to love tenderly, do justly, and walk humbly with my God. It isn't about a code of details. it's about what i live for.

" how do you justify regular participation in topics that, at the very least, are extremely un-Christ-like?"

What posts? I don't mean to be smartass at all. What posts? My participation on this board...and i think of other liberal Christians...doesn't conflict with my religious idenity. I enjoy this place because i can have a Christian idenity....and not be the only one, but also enjoy hearing other persepctives as well.

I'm not sure what you expect "Christians" to look like. I'm sorry if some of us dissapoint...but i think it's safe to say... we're sinners saved by grace. we're not perfect, and we may post in anger or somethign like that. but that's the only sin i can know i've committed on the TFP.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

SecretMethod70

Believing that the Bible is not necessarily literally true is not mutually exclusive with believing that the Bible is an important and guiding text. Contextual theology is not a new thing, nor is it something that the majority of respected Christian theologians do not understand and agree with.

More contemporary Christian theology places much more focus on the deeper and broader teachings of Christianity as opposed to looking to the Bible as some "rulebook" to "get to Heaven."

If you sincerely want to understand the basis for this, I suggest you check out the PBS documentary "From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians." Your local library probably has a copy. It has four hour-long parts. And, because I'm sure someone would be more than happy to criticize me for pointing to some PBS show when it comes to religious thought, the only reason I even know about this documentary is from watching it in a class of mine on contemporary Catholic theology, at a Catholic university.

Another theological philosophy that may shed some light on the intepretations of many different biblical texts is that of the "two books." That is to say, theer are essentially two "books" to learn about God from - the first is the Bible and the second is Nature. Since God is behind both, they cannot be in conflict. So, using an easy example, if the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days and nature (through science) tells us it was created in X billion years, one must be wrong in the literal sense. And there's plenty of evidence it's not science. (Not to mention of course that the Bible provides two different creation stories with reversed orders)

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Min

1) One's interpretation or understanding of a group's beliefs based on popular concept rather than fact is rarely a good idea.
The question is reminiscent of someone asking in response to another annoucing they are Jewish regarding avarice, parsimony, or elitism.
Or asking, how can they be a Jew if so many people hate them?

Yes, some people do like the security of remaining within and being labeled by an established 'safe' group as there are those that attend church by habit and/ or tradition. However, there is also the group that has made a very conscious decision to believe or disbelieve.

2) If it really is an 'anything goes' Christianity, I would say, there would be no difference other than chosen self-identifier.

3) Being brand new to the forum thus I am not certain by what you mean un-Christ-like.
I can say, as was addressed earlier, Christians are no more perfect than any other human (that is why those called saints are extraoridnary) and therefore subject to vices and virtures anyone else is apt to fall prey.

ShaniFaye

All I really have to say is.....I've never claimed to be perfect, God does not expect perfection from me. I believe he expects me to treat people the best I can. The bible is not literal, I look at it as a reference book....stories and parables written by man about their own personal struggles with god. Lots of us could right a book like that.

I could most certainly write a huge book on my life and how I have seen god work in it and If I put a "christian" stamp on it, I dont think it would be that much different. I dont lie, I dont steal, I dont manipulate, I do my best to help my fellow man, I try not to be selfish. I try to be accepting of other people in their ways. I dont see how thats so different from what Christ did....he associated with the "sinners" he didnt keep himself hidden away proclaiming IM THE MOST PERFECT PERSON IN THE WORLD, other people did that for him....same as you might say something similiar about someone in your life. He had his time of doubt, he had his time when he questioned god....same as I do. So by my definition I dont think Im so far from "christ like"

No one is perfect, no one will ever be perfect, Since the days of adam and eve god has known how man is...he made us....I truely truely believe what he wants from us to to be tolerant of others and their belief's, to help our fellow man, and to be good to one another. I do not believe wine and cigarettes and a naked picture here and there are gonna keep me out of heaven. I believe hyposcrisy would....I do not tell people you should/shouldnt do something from a "god" stand point....what they do and how they live their life is between them and their particular "higher power" If the "heathens" were good enuff for Christ to associate with, break bread with, talk to etc, they its good enuff for me.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

shesus

In my experiences, Christians are human with temptations and blemishes like the rest of us. However, they have something that non-Christians do not. They have the Bible and Christ's forgiveness to support their choices. When I went to church, the preacher would not help a lady being hit by her husband in church. There were men who were having affairs, but attending church next to their family like nothing was amiss. There were the local drunks who would always be at church hung-over the next day. I think that these types of people use the church as a reassurance that they are 'good' people. People view God's forgiveness as an eraser that lets them start again fresh. Why else would so many criminals become self-professed Christians hours before execution?
Now, I know that not all Christians are like this.
Another thing is that the Bible is opened to interpretations. Just as in a previous post, the words and situations in the Bible can make any action all right. Even though adultery is a sin, God overlooked it because Sara couldn't get pregnant. So her husband was permitted to sleep with a servant so he could have a child. If I looked hard enough I could probably find a quote that would could be interpretted as sleeping and eating is evil. I think that you have to live life for what you think is right and if you think you have really messed up you can always ask for forgiveness at your death bed and everything will be erased.

flstf

Like Flip Wilson used to say, "The devil made me do it".

Rekna

We all have sin, there isn't much we can do about that. Is the bible a rule book on how to get to heaven? Yes, but what people don't understand is there is only 1 rule: Accept Jesus as your lord and personal savior, believe in him and you will get to heaven. Now the rest of the bible tells you how you *should* live your life, living your life for God has benifits beyond that which we know. I have lived the sinful life and I have lived the rightous life, let me tell you the rightous one is so much more enjoyable. So I can't pick up girls at the bar and have one night stands.... does that bother me? Not in the least I have been given so much more by choosing to live for God and not just accept Jesus as my lord and personal savior.

This is a choice that all christians must make, will I mearly accept God's love or will I also love him in return.

tecoyah

See....this is where many Christians get the bad publicity. The above post pretty much tells alot of people they are going to someones Hell. I do of course realize the biblical statements that proclaim this as truth, but I simply cannot accept the requirements and be honest with myself.
I am going to be completely Candid here, and hope to avoid offending anyone with the following statement. I have tried many times in the past to have discussions about the condemnation of my soul do to my failure to accept Jesus as my savior. Through these discussions I have come to a conclusion I do not very much like, but will have to live with. It serves no further purpose to attempt to gain information from those Literal Christians who judge me........for they have no information left to give. I simply cannot accept that I am doomed to this Hell, because a book says so.
No, I am not angry or spiteful of those who deem me heathen......just dissapointed.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

SecretMethod70

As a Catholic, I must say I also agree with tecoyah. The idea that simply "accepting Jesus" is the one and only "key" is not only simplistic in my opinion, it is also completely missing the broader messages of Christianity and of Jesus' ministry.

This is one of the (very many) reasons I am confident in my choice of Catholicism within the realm of Christian religions: despite the fact that there are varying views and interpretations by many within the religion, there is a general understanding that the above concept is simply not the case. At least not in the way most people mean it.

Is it perfectly reasonable, as a Christian, to believe that Ghandi, "Buddha," and other similar people have achieved the closeness with God that we refer to as "Heaven?" Yes, and Catholic thought says this as well.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Rekna

First I did not say anyone is going to hell did I? I never made any statement like that at all. As a Christian I know that I cannot say who goes to heaven and doesn't in fact the bible directly tells me not to make comments about that, I should not judge others or claim to be above them in anyway. It is a humble life that is a Godly life, Jesus the most holy man ever spent his life washing the feet of others.

So don't say i'm making a bad name for christians because i'm proclaiming hell for everyone else. That is not what I do.

All I know is that I am going to heaven because I believe. It does not take works to get to heaven, this is all over the bible if you want I can find you countless verses that say not by works but by grace. Or believe and you will be saved. I know that Jesus is A way to heaven, are there other ways? Maybe. Afterall anything is possible through God. I know what he has promised me.

Anyone who claims the bible to be the word of God and has studied the message of the bible cannot say it takes more than grace to be saved without ignoring large parts of the bible. The book Galatians is directly about legalizing religion which is what so many people have done. There is not a score card to get into heaven, we don't get letter grades when we get there. Just remember the first will be last and the last will be first.

Rekna

This is really funny, I was just perparing for my next weeks bible study and the chapter we are doing is ephesians chapter 2. Go read that it is directly about being saved by grace not works.

here is a snippit 2:8-9

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast.

tecoyah

Perhaps I misread your comment, or misunderstood the implications . If so my apologies, as stated , no offense was intended. This is why I prefaced my reply in the way I did, as I have been in this position numerable times. I am well aware of the scriptures, and do not require reiteration of what is said within. I simply understand it differently than you do.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

SecretMethod70

I guess that's why "some people say" (as they say over at Fox News )* that I'm not "Christian" since I'm "Catholic." As for me, I say bullocks.

This much I can agree with you on. There is no scorecard. Much like there is no "rulebook." This includes the "believe in Jesus" rule. This idea was, of course, the primary argument by the Christian slaveholders as a justification for their actions. They "believed" and, therefore, had no need to concern themselves with the goodness of their actions, for they "believed" that Jesus died for their sins. Well, whether or not this is the intended conclusion of that concept is irrelevant - it is the *logical* conclusion.

Anyway, we could re-debate the entire reformation, or we could just agree to disagree on that topic. I vote for the latter.

* If you haven't seen the movie "Outfoxed," just ignore my Fox News comment

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Lebell

I would be interested in seeing links to those posts.

I'm not saying that they don't exist, but I don't recall any off hand.

As for myself, I admit that I occassionally put a "hell" or a "shit" into a post, but I don't know if this qualifies as "expletive laden".


First, I feel a need to examine this phrase,

"with a bit of hostility"

I will make the assumption that you are refering to THIS THREAD when you say this. After re-reading the thread, I still don't see that anyone replied to you "with a bit of hostility", but whatever. If anything, when people say things like,

and "some 'Christians' here" with "Christians" in quotes, well, that indicated someone with some hostility of their own.

Then there is the question of this:

When I specifically said,

And

To which you never replied, to be telling.

The fact is that it is generally considered rude to thread jack and while I've been guilty, I avoided doing so in that thread and pointed you to the proper forum to answer your question.

Now to the question.

It is simple fact that the Bible is a collection of stories, both from Hebrew and early Christian tradition which was collected together by consencious at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century.

Since that time, Christians everywhere have been struggling to understand them.

The liberal hermeneutical view that some stories (Adam and Eve, Noah, etc) probably did not happen literally but were part of the collected Hebrew creation myth also is not a recent development.

But whether these stories are literal or not has no bearing on what it means to be "Christian", which seems to me to be the source of your question #1.
So long as a person believes in the Gospel of Jesus, then I will call them "brother", even as I may disagree with some of their politics.

As to Fred Phelps (and some others), I personally feel that he ignores and twists the teachings of Jesus, and in doing so, is sinning greatly.

Or in other words,

and

As for myself, I believe Jesus is the prophesized Christ, who was born among us, died and rose again.

The beliefs on homosexuality that Fred Phelps's and others who call themselves "Christian" aside, what else but "Christian" should I call myself?

I answered this previously, but I will answer it again. First of all, if you choose to call someone "heathen", that is up to you, but I would NEVER deny that anyone who calls themselves "Christian" is a Christian.

Nor do I feel any great need to defend my calling myself Christian to you or anyone else.

Calling myself such hinges solely on what I stated above.

As to my actions, I attempt to put them in line with the two greatest commandments that I referenced in the previous thread.

Like all Christians, sometimes I am more successful than others.

I don't understand why you are reticent to do a search if your purpose is indeed to learn different viewpoints on the subject.

I assure you that many of my thoughts from a year ago will remain true today. I may not however, have the inclination to make another megapost about the topic such as this.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Dbass

I don't have a bible handy, but I don't seem to remember christ saying: Looketh not at pictures of naked women, for it is sin." Nor do I remember him saying "Drinketh not, and smoketh not anything." As a CHRISTIAN, I do what I can to follow the guidelines of what is good, and what is bad. It seems to me that if a priest 2000 years removed from Jesus says "Sexuality is bad" without any evidence from the gospels, I don't feel the slightest inclination to listen. And certainly, an outrageous post on what I can say is Not the last bastion of Christianity that says I'm not being Christian for following my own instincts isn't going to sway me.

mrklixx

Lebell,

Your dig about it "being telling" that I didn't respond to your request to start a thread in Philosophy seems kind of strange, since it's posted in a thread started by me in Philosophy But you are right. It is telling that I wasn't able to get around to it in a timely enough manner for you, and I apologize.

I've got some other things to say on the topic, but I figured I post this by itself since I was the one (who apparently is still) being accused of "starting a fight".

__________________
This post is content. If you don't like it then you are not content. Or perhaps just incontinent.

This is not a link - Do not click here

I hate animated avatars.

Lebell

mrklixx,

I was talking about that you didn't respond to my last post in the "Sweden loves Fags" thread in General.

I posted the link so people can go make up their own mind, but it always catches me by surprise when someone thinks that being redirected to another forum == not getting answered.

In any event, I am looking forward to your post.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

mrklixx

I don't understand this at all. Any literal interpretation used to prove a point is a "strawman attack"? But then where did you get the information that supports the following statements, if not from literal translation?
That's why I asked before, which parts should be taken literally and which parts shouldn't? Because it wouldn't do me any good to post scriptural references if they don't happen to be chapters/verses that you "believe".



I almost put a caveat in my original post about the "not perfect, just forgiven" line, but the I figured I'd wait to see how long it was until somebody used it. I didn't have to wait very long. Put it this way, an alcoholic that visits a bar every day, is not trying to live a sober lifestyle.


A Lebellian? A member of the "Happy Jesus Joy Club"? I don't know. I just don't understand this overwhelming need to be labeled as a member of a group, just because it's a "popular" name. Just like the push for Mormons and Catholics to be classified as Christians. Why not just be satisfied with being Mormons and Catholics?

I'm glad that your beliefs are rock solid, and you are 100% sure that they have never changed or will never change. But I know quite a few people whose beliefs have changed over time. And for those unwilling to accept change, there is always cut/paste.


Maybe I should have approached this from a different angle, since apparently contrary to the bible (depending on which verses one selectively believes", things like pornography, lust, fornication, etc aren't actually sins, then maybe I should ask what exactly does qualify as a "sin"? Or is the entire concept of "sin" one of those "literal translation faux pas"?

__________________
This post is content. If you don't like it then you are not content. Or perhaps just incontinent.

This is not a link - Do not click here

I hate animated avatars.

SecretMethod70

um...Catholics are Christians and always HAVE been Christians. Your statement otherwise tells me all I need to know about the worth in debating with you.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Bryndian_Dhai

Uh, just wanted to point out that the Catholic faith was the
first christian faith. First there was the unified Catholic church, then the Schism, producing the Roman Catholic church and the separate Orthodox church. Then Reformation and Martin Luther's 95 Theses, which effectively separated the Protestant faiths (and allnon Catholic/Orthodox faiths fall into this category) from Catholicism.

So if you're saying that Catholics (or Mormons, for that matter) are not christian, then you're wrong. Period. This isn't theology, its history.

__________________
“When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
~Sinclair Lewis

mrklixx

Could you please point out exactly where I said that they weren't. You make far too many assumptions. And am I supposed to be offended by your backhanded comment about my debating "worth"?

__________________
This post is content. If you don't like it then you are not content. Or perhaps just incontinent.

This is not a link - Do not click here

I hate animated avatars.

martinguerre

You're misreading. When people use Fred Phelps, or other extreme viewpoints as a strawmen...When being the operative word...the response is usually sharp. I, and many others, are tired of our faith being defined by some unfortunatly famous haters.


If you really think that i have my bible highlighted...you're oversimplfying things greatly. Read the text, discuss, read commentaries, discuss, pray, apply...that's how i test scripture in my life. What do you think should be going on? What does "beleive" mean anyways? You're using it to mean literal reading, if i interpret you right. Which makes the whole question bollocks. No text is self interpreting.


That's an insult.



Sin is violence, it is separation. It is what we do to harm other beings and ourselves.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

mrklixx

To whom?

So violence is the only sin?

__________________
This post is content. If you don't like it then you are not content. Or perhaps just incontinent.

This is not a link - Do not click here

I hate animated avatars.

mrklixx

Well for instance, "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." and "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body" seem pretty self explanatory, and yet it's not on the sin list here.

__________________
This post is content. If you don't like it then you are not content. Or perhaps just incontinent.

This is not a link - Do not click here

I hate animated avatars.

martinguerre

You put our faith in quotes, you imply that we're hypocrites, and then you suggest that we are drunk on sin. You target a section of this community, not just a group of people...but specifically the people here at the TFP. Tell me who you're insulting.

No. That's not what i said.

To the rest of it...

Those verses are part of a continuing conversation about sexual ethic of the faith community. There is also the issue of self-interpretation. You're not using nearly the same definition of the word. You are assuming that if its in the book, it simply got there by magic. Someone wrote that. I ask why. That's why nothing will ever be self-interpreting. You want to proof text. I'm telling you that that is not a useful form of debate.

I would be happy to discuss the broader topic, but in the face of your behavior on this and other threads...I will respectfully decline.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Rekna

1st Corinithians delt directly with this split, catholics, lutherans, baptists, ect. It is funny how people still argue about this. I'm a Christian, nothing more, nothing less. Read 1 Corinthians chapter 3 to see what paul said about the divisions of the church.

mrklixx

Sorry, wrong answer. You make assumptions and then try and represent them as facts. Just like Lebell and SecretMethod70. I put "Christians" in quotes because one of the points I am trying to make is that people are so tied that label that it becomes more important than the actual mechanics of their individual faith, as perfectly demonstrated by Bryndian_Dhai and SecretMethod70 getting bent out of shape because they assumed that I thought that Catholics didn't deserve a "Christian" sticker on their sweater-vest.

This condescending superiority complex from you, SecretMethod70, and Lebell is no real surprise given the subject, but it's disappointing nonetheless.

__________________
This post is content. If you don't like it then you are not content. Or perhaps just incontinent.

This is not a link - Do not click here

I hate animated avatars.

SecretMethod70

It's interesting for me to observe that you feel a necessity toward literal interpretation of ancient texts as well as a lack of comprehension regarding the implications of your own statements. "You did not literally state that Catholics, or Mormons, ought not be considered Christians, so therefore it must not be present in your statements." Now, perhaps you didn't intend to give that impression, but if that's the case then I see a severe lack of acknowledgement on your part regarding how the rest of the world works and thinks.

Anyway, to the point regarding labels (and if that's what you were trying to discuss, why didn't you say it in the first place?), most people around the world understand the term "Christian" to be one who believes that Jesus was not only a spectacular person and teacher, but somehow divine and specially connected to what we call God as well. Your implication (whether literally stated or not, and whether intended or not) that Catholics are not Christian flies in the face of this accepted understanding. So, to the majority of the world, by denying Catholics (I'm not sure about the particulars of the Mormon relationship with Jesus) the "right" to call themselves "Christian," you are, in effect, telling them that they are not what they think they are. You are TELLING them what to believe as opposed to observing what they believe. Now, if you'd like to say that Catholics are not "Christian fundementalists," that is perfectly reasonable. There are certain understood guidelines to that label, such as a more literal interpretation of the bible, that Catholics freely admit they do not share. But "Christian" and "Christian fundementalist" are not one in the same.

No, the mechanics of my faith are not less important than a label with which to identify. However, I'd venture to say most people are not going to have someone tell them that they are not or do not have the right to say that they are a part of a varied and diverse grouping such as "Christian." Anyone who, at the core of their faith, understands Jesus to be Christ is a "Christian." The fact that you do not agree with the way in which they interpret the meaning of this existence does not grant the ability to deny them "membership" to this exclusive club you'd apparently prefer that it be.

I'm willing to accept that many people may have different understandings of the meaning of Jesus as Christ than I do...what I'm wondering is why aren't you?


And, on a completely separate note, if you keep on making subtle flames and calling other members of the board asses (don't think I didn't notice), you'll find that your time here will become much less enjoyable or lengthy.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

martinguerre

Edit...Smeth said it all when it comes to the tone of this discussion. I hope that's the end of such things.

The label means a lot. What you think is the only thing that deserves it...is not the definition of Christianity. Never has been, either. That's what we're trying to say. The label means a lot, in its multiple meanings. Telling someone that they are not Christian when they identify as such is something very rude to do. The response to this provocation, has in my opinion, been quite civil.

Superiority, i make no claim to. Take a look at what you've posted. It's inflammatory. No serious debate or discussion is possible in those terms.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Thermopyle

Americans, in general, are way too far religious. Go secular, it's much easier!!

__________________
Live life like you're gonna die, beacause you're gonna!

- William Shatner.

Rekna

I would say just the reverse actually

mrklixx

I'm pretty sure, no scratch that, I'm absolutely sure that you have no idea what I do or don't agree with. I never once said that anyone should be denied anything. It's just a real shame that paranoia can't be overcome, and when somebody takes a non-traditional route, they are labeled the "inflammatory bad guy".


Speaking of exclusive clubs. I see now that it is OK for members of "the club" to make all kinds of backhanded digs (addressing someone's worth, condescending remarks about "behavior", etc), but if I make a play on an age old saying about jumping to conclusions, I get threatened with discipline. Again not unexpected, but disappointing.

__________________
This post is content. If you don't like it then you are not content. Or perhaps just incontinent.

This is not a link - Do not click here

I hate animated avatars.

SecretMethod70

Well, religion when combined with intelligence and common sense (meaning an understanding of history and science) is really not that difficult at all IMO. Difficult to live still? Sure. Difficult to get along with others? Not really. I would modify your statement to say that Americans, in general, are way too blindly religious and lack the mindset to more broadly apply religion to the world.

But, now we're getting onto the topic of a different thread.

Sorry you felt I meant it that way. I simply meant that it was clear you are not open to the statements any of us are making and it is, therefore, probably not worth the time and effort.

Your worth as a person is something which I really have no basis, or right really, to form an opinion on.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Slavakion

Let me start by saying that I'm not religious at all. I think I was baptized a Protestant, but...

The way I understand it, the only really important thing in the Bible for Christians is the New Testament. That's where Jesus shows up, and that's where God stops smiting people. Here you get an expansion on the 10 commandments (only important thing in OT in my opinion) that adds a sense of morality and loving your neighbor. But if you really want to be a good Christian, you don't need a Bible. You need to help other people. Brighten up someone's day. Not punch that asshole in the face. Not killing or stealing. Am I a good Christian? By these guidelines, I think so.

Now what I mean by the OT being "unimportant" is that it doesn't have much bearing on how to be a good Christian besides the 10 commandments. I very much doubt that many Christians follow the exhaustive rules laid out in leviticus.

Just an opinion from an atheist.

martinguerre

that's a pretty marcionistic view...

i won't tell you you're wrong, but to be orthodox, one would have to affirm the hebrew scriptures much more than that.

there's a lot more going on...the exodus story is a necessity, IMO.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Slavakion

After Googling marcionism, that's not really what I meant. What I was taught is that OT and NT God were the same, but people interpreted him differently. Back in the day, when they were fighting a battle (and winning), God was supposedly mowing down the enemies. NT brought a new understanding of him along with Jesus.

And I'm not exactly orthodox...

martinguerre

i used marcion because there seemed to be a sharp line between hebrew scripture and new testament.

if you read the prophets...there is a significant amount of revision to the "smite 'em all" rhetoric. and even in the pentatuch...the first five books...there are other notes to the tune.

it's something that has to be looked at in total. to speak to the topic of the thread a bit...we don't interpret the story in terms of the detail. we interpret the detail in terms of the story.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

flstf

I think a good analogy is just like Californians and Texans also consider themselves Americans.

Rekna

The old testament is the new testament concealed. And the new testament is the old testament revealed. They go hand in hand, the old testament forshadowed the new from the very beginning. Just no one knew what it was saying until Jesus made it all clear.