The forceful nature by which some in Dakka OT have justified their political stances in recent threads as being "based in Christianity" led me to seek out some of this wisdom for myself.
CptJake wrote:So using your example, I guess by going to the site I find a lot of out of context quotes?
I'll skip it.
Each picture has a clickable link to source material, many of which include videos of the individuals in question saying said quotes, news stories in which they are quoted, etc.
But yes, YOU should skip it...
Denial IS a key strategy that false-Christians employ.
These are quotes by false Christians who claim to love the bible and its teachings yet through their actions and words blaspheme said teachings as they twist its meaning to fuel their own bigoted and devisive political agendas. I'm pretty sure that ISN'T what Jesus would do...
Seeing that Romney's point was that there IS a functioning safety net for the poor, and that he was willing to fix any perceived problems with that existing and functioning safety net so he (if he wins) could focus on rebuilding the middle class that is struggling, the quote is way out of context.
Romney actually gives his money to charities that help the poor in a much greater percent of his income than the current POTUS, so he seems willing to back up his beliefs.
Also, I really don't see him using his religion to push his politcal agenda, so the whole OP is a strawman to begin with.
CptJake wrote:Romney actually gives his money to charities that help the poor in a much greater percent of his income than the current POTUS
Romney also makse a much higher amount of money than the current PotUS, due to his running companies in the ground and all.
A person who makes more money can afford to give more as a percentage than one who makes less. This is why we have a progressive tax instead of a flat tax (which would actuallly be regressive in effect).
I don't think Romney's comments were indefensible, by any means, but I do see a significant irony in any self-identified Christian saying that they don't need to speak about the plight of the poor, because someone else is going to.
Mannahnin wrote:I don't think Romney's comments were indefensible, by any means, but I do see a significant irony in any self-identified hypocrite saying that they don't need to speak about the plight of the poor, because someone else is going to.
So the religo-politicians are at it again, huh? Alright!!! You all know that all of these books that you people say is the "Word of God" are at best dictated by God to mortals, who probably didn't get it right and on top of that made a few corrections along the way, because "I might have heard wrong and I'm sure that's what God really meant to say", and at worse are an example of "Hey, let's tell people that the reason why we tell them what to do is because we're just humble servants passing on the word of some invisible, all-powerful man in the sky." Right? Flame away.
The OP calls other people trolls on a semi-daily basis; today he posts a troll thread. Way to "practice what you preach", as it were.
I agree, in general, with the sentiment that people pick and choose what it is convenient for them to believe from their respective religious texts, but for some reason I don't get the "Let's discuss this issue reasonably" vibe from this thread.
Monster Rain wrote:The OP calls other people trolls on a semi-daily basis; today he posts a troll thread. Way to "practice what you preach", as it were.
The bar was lowered many many many threads ago by the usual suspects, so what is good for the goose and all that.
Hopefully the faux-Christians that populate this forum can find it in their heart to forgive me...
Monster Rain wrote:That's exactly what I'm talking about.
Nothing? As usual...
Bottom line: these faux Christians like those highlighted in that site seem to forget we live in a modern era in which tape recorders and video cameras and the internet record everythign they say and make it readily available for the world to see.
So when you claim so strongly to be something, but then your every word and action are not in line with what you claim to be people are rightfully going to point out the hypocrisy.
Any true Christian, or any person with some sene of ethics/morality could not possibly see these people as righteous and faithful Christians, yet they support them as they blaspheme that which they claim to represent...
Monster Rain wrote:That's exactly what I'm talking about.
Nothing? As usual...
Fairly sure he was accusing you of trolling...
I mean even i can see that...
Yeah he accuses me of that on a "semi-daily" basis...
Doesn't change the fact that the site collects the statements of self-described Christians for analysis and that much of these comments are anything but...
So we can keep discussing what a bad man I am for highlighting the site ( a useful distraction to be sure), or we can discuss the site and the content: particularly the reacuring themes of intolerance, bigotry, mysogeny, racial hatred, homophobia, and paranoia that form the basis of much of what these people spew...
CT, MR has a point in that there are better and worse ways to raise and discuss these kind of things.
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander" is more or less pretending that two wrongs make a right. Just because I think someone else is a jerk does not justify being a jerk in response. You'll have more success seizing the moral high ground if you make your point with more courtesy and less anger.
Mannahnin wrote:CT, MR has a point in that there are better and worse ways to raise and discuss these kind of things.
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander" is more or less pretending that two wrongs make a right. Just because I think someone else is a jerk does not justify being a jerk in response. You'll have more success seizing the moral high ground if you make your point with more courtesy and less anger.
I posted a link to a site and made a claim about the lack of christian behavior in the self-described Christians in question.
Remind me again who then posted not to discuss the site but to call me a troll?
Notice again who it is that continues (multiple posts now) to only address me and not the subject at hand...
I don't plan to respond further to MR, because he clearly wants to take the thread off the rails.
It would be nice if you as a MOD might assist in asking people to stay on topic and dealing with those who don't.
CT, your first post was probably fine (though the line "A collection of true quotes from some of our geatest modern "Christian" thinkers... " is perhaps a bit belligerent). Your second post (the response to Cpt Jake) made it look like you were seeking a fight.
If you want to have a polite discussion about what appears to be a conflict between Christian doctrine and the politics of people who present themselves as Christians in current US politics, that's certainly legitimate fodder for discussion. But I can see why Christians like MR would be cautious about this, and not want to participate if the thread seems like an excuse for a fight. I'd like to see the thread involve polite discussion. If that doesn't happen, whoever is preventing that needs to take responsibility. You are correct that one of the Dakka rules is to stay on topic. But Rule #1 is to keep it courteous.
moom241 wrote:Kind of funny. Religion shouldn't be used to power a political agenda.
I use religion for my political reasoning all the time, Doing what jesuses would have wanted. Help the poor, Promote tolerance and understanding and realising that no matter how a person acts there is still a human being in them that deserves respects from all.
Alot of problems would be solved if we respected one another and where able to look past our differences and face a common ground.
Mannahnin wrote:
discussion about what appears to be a conflict between Christian doctrine and the politics of people who present themselves as Christians in current US politics,
yes, that is what we need to discuss.
Can't wait to see what peoples thoughts are on it, especially in relation to the body of public quotations the linked site has collected.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
I use religion for my political reasoning all the time, Doing what jesuses would have wanted. Help the poor, Promote tolerance and understanding and realising that no matter how a person acts there is still a human being in them that deserves respects from all.
All legtimate ways to incorporate positive Christian values into political reasoning.
Sadly many of the people quoted and many of the quotes themselves fall far short of this...
I've been enjoying reading the stories this weekend of Santorum basically saying the President isn't really a Christian, then backpedaling while still trying to say "yeah, that is what I meant".
He was also asked why during one of those speeches why when an woman at a town hall said that the President was a Muslim that he didn't try to explain to her that he wasn't and his was response was that he can't "correct everyone that disagrees with him". As we know, when someone says that 2+2=5, it really is a disagreement, not just being wrong.
If he actually gets the nomination it will be a lock on President Obama getting a second term.
CT GAMER wrote:The forceful nature by which some in Dakka OT have justified their political stances in recent threads as being "based in Christianity" led me to seek out some of this wisdom for myself.
When did this happen?
Ahtman wrote:
If he actually gets the nomination it will be a lock on President Obama getting a second term.
I wouldn't say a lock, lots of people really hate Obama (I'm using "really hate" literally here), but it will definitely increase his chances of victory.
CT GAMER wrote:The forceful nature by which some in Dakka OT have justified their political stances in recent threads as being "based in Christianity" led me to seek out some of this wisdom for myself.
When did this happen?
Ahtman wrote:
If he actually gets the nomination it will be a lock on President Obama getting a second term.
I wouldn't say a lock, lots of people really hate Obama (I'm using "really hate" literally here), but it will definitely increase his chances of victory.
Look for the sparkley bible pics and work back from there...
Ahtman wrote:
If he actually gets the nomination it will be a lock on President Obama getting a second term.
I wouldn't say a lock, lots of people really hate Obama (I'm using "really hate" literally here), but it will definitely increase his chances of victory.
I was exaggerating, but yes. I think Romney would have a better shot at it, but the longer the primaries go on and the more they destroy and attack each other I wonder how strong any will be afterward. I know some have argued that it just makes the candidate stronger, but it can also sap them as well, and I think in this instance the scarring won't heal by election day. It is just a bit to mean spirited and a little to aimed at edges of the base to not hurt them. It is more complex then that (like I have to tell you), but with just 2 minutes before heading outside (it burns it burns!) can't really go into detail. I also had some thoughts on the fact that religious politicians in a secular government are in a tough spot often times and that we shouldn't always be so hard on all of them. Some that use their religion as a weapon are certainly worthy of our scorn.
CptJake wrote:
Romney actually gives his money to charities that help the poor in a much greater percent of his income than the current POTUS, so he seems willing to back up his beliefs.
To be fair, the vast majority of Romney's charitable contributions are to the Mormon Church, and BYU. You can argue that they help the poor, but having been around churches for most of my life, I can tell you that most donations to any given church that are not explicitly taken in to help the poor go to church operations (ie. paying the staff, heating and electrical bills, expanding an endowment, general upkeep, etc.), and the same can be said of colleges vis a vis scholarships.
CptJake wrote:
Romney actually gives his money to charities that help the poor in a much greater percent of his income than the current POTUS, so he seems willing to back up his beliefs.
To be fair, the vast majority of Romney's charitable contributions are to the Mormon Church, and BYU. You can argue that they help the poor, but having been around churches for most of my life, I can tell you that most donations to any given church that are not explicitly taken in to help the poor go to church operations (ie. paying the staff, heating and electrical bills, expanding an endowment, general upkeep, etc.), and the same can be said of colleges vis a vis scholarships.
Having been in the Mormon church for most of my life and having worked as a volunteer in charity operations from time to time, I can tell you quite a bit goes to help the poor. The various wards in the church are run from the top down by unpaid members that volunteer their time, along with their monetary contributions.
I wouldn't say a lock, lots of people really hate Obama (I'm using "really hate" literally here), but it will definitely increase his chances of victory.
Santorum is the only GOP candidate that would be reprehensible enough to the socially left to motivate them to vote, en masse.
I wouldn't say a lock, lots of people really hate Obama (I'm using "really hate" literally here), but it will definitely increase his chances of victory.
Santorum is the only GOP candidate that would be reprehensible enough to the socially left to motivate them to vote, en masse.
But then again, it's not like Romeny is able to motivate the conservative base. He's gonna really ahve to reach out to centrists to win against Obama...
Melissia wrote:But then again, it's not like Romeny is able to motivate the conservative base. He's gonna really ahve to reach out to centrists to win against Obama...
Which is something he could pull off, unlike Newton & Santorum, IMHO.
I've seen the site before, it's very funny and does a terrific job of pointing out how little the policy platforms and beliefs of the Republican have to do with the teachings and values of Jesus, despite how much they go on about Christ.
I thought about posting the site here, but figured that the people who don't get it weren't going to suddenly figure it all out because of some funny speach bubbles.
CptJake wrote:So using your example, I guess by going to the site I find a lot of out of context quotes?
I'll skip it.
Out of context? You're complaining that website that takes quotes from prominent Christians and puts them in the mouth of Jesus is out of context. Out of context is the whole point of the exercise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:But then again, it's not like Romeny is able to motivate the conservative base. He's gonna really ahve to reach out to centrists to win against Obama...
The relevance of centrists is a total myth. There are hardly any of them, and only a fraction of them vote.
Elections are about the base, and how many of them you can convince to get out and vote. Obama won in 2008 because he built massive enthusiasm among his core demographics, while McCain did not. In 2010 there was all kinds of noise made about the Tea Party, but anyone who bothered to look at the numbers knows the election came down to two simple things - the core Republican demographics turned out to vote in numbers consistant with most of their elections, while the Democrats suffered a considerable decline in participation.
CT GAMER wrote:The forceful nature by which some in Dakka OT have justified their political stances in recent threads as being "based in Christianity" led me to seek out some of this wisdom for myself.
When did this happen?
There's a new troll in OT that makes over-the-top and offensive comments then claims to be a Christian, thereby giving ammo to others here to broadly slander Christians in general. CT is encouraging him.
OT: Isn't the big complaint about the "religious right" that they're mixing religion and politics? Doesn't the linked site make the same mistake?
biccat wrote:
OT: Isn't the big complaint about the "religious right" that they're mixing religion and politics? Doesn't the linked site make the same mistake?
Depends on who you talk to. Many religious people will tell you that its not that religion is motivating their decision making that is problematic, but that the type of religion that is motivating their decision making is reprehensible, based on bad theology, or otherwise unworthy.
There's also a difference between reacting to a religious group injecting religion into politics, and simply injecting religion into politics.
I still think the 'Jesus is a Jerk' pictures are better (in a 'if it turns out the Abrahamic religions are right, I'm totally going to burn in Hell for this' sort of way)-
Relapse wrote:
Having been in the Mormon church for most of my life and having worked as a volunteer in charity operations from time to time, I can tell you quite a bit goes to help the poor. The various wards in the church are run from the top down by unpaid members that volunteer their time, along with their monetary contributions.
Were the Mormon Church not the owner of several for-profit entities, I might agree given its structure. That said, the Church claims its only uses tithes ecclesiastically, but I'm not willing to take that at face value.
Also, for any church, staff costs are minimal; usually only the minister/priest is paid. But large facilities are expensive to own and operate, or rent.
biccat wrote:OT: Isn't the big complaint about the "religious right" that they're mixing religion and politics? Doesn't the linked site make the same mistake?
No, not at all. The site is simply pointing out that for a party that talks about God and Jesus a lot seems to ignore his most important teachings.
There is, of course, a very big different between 'if you're going to be the party of Jesus maybe you should sound like him a little more often' and 'you must all sound like Jesus'.
My thoughts on the matter:
The purpose of the site, obviously, is satire. I don't think the meaning goes much deeper than that.
As for the Christian candidates? By what criteria do we define Christians? Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant? Mormon?
All of these (thousands of) groups have significantly different ideas of what constitutes Christian identity, doctrine, and dogma.
Generally speaking, the main cause for this deviation is interpretation of the scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Testament (and sometimes further testaments as is the case with the LDS) since both the HB and the GT are canon across the board.
Textually speaking, plenty of basis exists for the statements of the candidates e.g. for homosexuality, reference LEV 20:13 (all historio-critical and etymological debates aside, the Hebrew translation for this passage is very clear). One could also reference Paul's letters for this debate, but the context is less clear due to Paul's propensity for coining new Greek words.
As for misogyny? 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11 as well as the entire last chapter of Judges and many of the mitzvah.
Murder? Reference Leviticus, the Revelation of John, or well, any and most, of the Hebrew Bible. Plenty of situations occur in which murder is sanctioned.
All this to the point that: Christianity is not a religion based solely upon the words of the Jesus Christ (what little we have). Further, interpretation plays a pivotal role in how doctrine develops. For example, Augustine's interpretations of scripture (like the doctrine of original sin) were widely viewed as heresy by the church at large, but accepted later by Imperial decree and so became doctrine (reference Elaine Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels and Beyond Belief).
In the postmodern world, one cannot say interpretations are 'right' or 'wrong,' only whether one agrees or disagrees. Because the candidates are both Americans and Protestant, they have free reign to interpret the scriptures in whatever way they wish. Whether these interpretations are correct or incorrect, again depends on what analytical lens one uses to evaluate their statements. Christianity is not a single monolithic organization with a definition of identity set in stone; the communion is, and has been since its inception, a sectarian milieu. Generally speaking, the only criteria for claiming Christian identity have been a profession of faith in Christ as savior and possibly belief in the trinity-- but again, even this rule has its exceptions. Ergo, no single clean definition for Christian identity exists, only a myriad of possible and equally correct definitions.
My point being that one cannot say whether someone is a real Christian (since no absolute definition exists) or not; only whether one agrees or disagrees with them.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that many of the "religious right" interpret the scriptures isogetically and without regard to literary or historical context and they are therefore wrong. But that is my opinion, and it cannot be empirically proven any more than theirs. For the record, I don't agree with them, and it is my interpretation of events that, yes, they are bigoted (or at least pretend to be... I'm really not sure what Romney actually believes) idiotic, and counterproductive to the American good.
So yeah, there you have it. I hope that all made sense, it's rather late and I'm not entirely certain this is all coming out lucidly.
Classic type thread here, good job everyone, I am not going to add anything except I am going back to reading the MLP thread, or something else less full of conflict.
deathholydeath wrote:So yeah, there you have it. I hope that all made sense, it's rather late and I'm not entirely certain this is all coming out lucidly.
deathholydeath wrote:
Generally speaking, the main cause for this deviation is interpretation of the scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Testament (and sometimes further testaments as is the case with the LDS) since both the HB and the GT are canon across the board.
To be fair, very few people consider LDS to be Christian.
deathholydeath wrote:
Generally speaking, the main cause for this deviation is interpretation of the scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Testament (and sometimes further testaments as is the case with the LDS) since both the HB and the GT are canon across the board.
To be fair, very few people consider LDS to be Christian.
On the other hand, the full name, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as well as our doctrine proves we believe in Jesus.
I remember when I was in boot camp, a group of 5 DI's called a born again Christian and myself into the duty hut and began hazing us about our religious beliefs for several minutes.
The senior DI then asked me what I thought about the treatment, and I answered thatt it didn't mean a thing to me since I'd often been harrased about my religion before.
At that point, the color left his face, the room went quiet, and for the first of two times time in boot camp, I saw a DI go speechless.
After he took a minute to compose himself, he began, in a stumbling way, to say that what he was doing wasn't harrasement, but a discussion of beliefs. After that, we were dismissed, and for the rest of boot camp, that DI never bothered me about anything.
dogma wrote:To be fair, very few people consider LDS to be Christian.
Well, there's at least 10 million Mormons who think so.
Then there's the problem with people who are willing to exclude just about anyone who isn't them, think of the number of Protestants who think Catholics aren't Christian. Really, all you can do is say everyone who believes in Jesus is Christian, or that it isn't anyone's place to decide who else is or isn't Christian.
Relapse wrote:
On the other hand, the full name, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as well as our doctrine proves we believe in Jesus.
So do Muslims and Jews, they just don't believe he was the messiah.
sebster wrote:
Well, there's at least 10 million Mormons who think so.
Then there's the problem with people who are willing to exclude just about anyone who isn't them, think of the number of Protestants who think Catholics aren't Christian. Really, all you can do is say everyone who believes in Jesus is Christian, or that it isn't anyone's place to decide who else is or isn't Christian.
Assuming by "believe" you mean "believe to be real" the set "Christians" gets really, really large; to an absurd degree. Hell, that would make me a Christian, and no one who has know me for more than 5 minutes would claim that.
Any reasonable definition of Christianity has to turn on either greater specificity, or a certain degree of commonality (I prefer the latter, but lots of people seem to like the Nicene Creed.). One useful metric is whether or not someone believes in the Trinity, and its a metric which excludes Mormons. However, there are also Christian groups that are nontrinitarian, so that's not enough.
Without going into explicit detail, there are enough doctrinal differences between LDS and Christians to consider them fundamentally separate. Another way to put it is that once Mormons added a new holy book, Momonism became a new Abrahamic faith.
Relapse wrote:
On the other hand, the full name, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as well as our doctrine proves we believe in Jesus.
So do Muslims and Jews, they just don't believe he was the messiah.
As I said in a previous post we believe in the atonment. In other words, we believe in the teachings of Jesus, that he was the son of God, the example of his life, and that he was crucified to save us.
I can't speak for Muslims and Jews, but that's about as direct an answer I can give you on what LDS members believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Articles of faith for the LDS church
Relapse wrote:
As I said in a previous post we believe in the atonment. In other words, we believe in the teachings of Jesus, that he was the son of God, the example of his life, and that he was crucified to save us.
I can't speak for Muslims and Jews, but that's about as direct an answer I can give you on what LDS members believe.
I have a fairly good grasp on what LDS members believe, or at least what they're supposed to believe.
You're nontrinitarian, which for many people (most Catholics and Protestants) is enough to consider you something other than Christian but, as I said above, you also have at least one additional holy book (Is Doctrine and Covenants considered equivalent to the Book of Mormon? I can't remember.). That, is sufficient for me to consider Mormons distinct from Christians, at least without delving in major doctrinal differences.
We believe that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate entities. The Doctrine and Covenents are in fact one of the standard works along with the Bible and Book of Mormon.
As far as what you believe, you are free to think I'm not Christian with no hard feelings on my part. I do, however,I follow in my best way his teachings according to LDS doctrine with the hope I'll get better at it over time
dogma wrote:So do Muslims and Jews, they just don't believe he was the messiah.
Mormons believe Jesus was the son of God and the Messiah, and that his crucifixion was for our sins. They believe he rose from the dead and travelled to the Kingdom of Heaven. I'm intrigued as to where you heard otherwise.
Assuming by "believe" you mean "believe to be real" the set "Christians" gets really, really large; to an absurd degree.
Why would you assume that? Why would you assume anything other than the common meaning given to those words every time it is spoken by Christians - to believe in Jesus is to believe he is the son of God, put on Earth to show the way, and that is only through his forgiveness that a person might join God in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Without going into explicit detail, there are enough doctrinal differences between LDS and Christians to consider them fundamentally separate.
Of course, it is perfectly sensible to consider them fundamentally seperate, without considering them 'not Christian'. It's exactly how the Western faiths saw Eastern Orthodox for centuries.
Relapse wrote:As far as what you believe, you are free to think I'm not Christian with no hard feelings on my part.
I think you misunderstand his point. As I am reading it, he isn't saying you aren't, or tell you what you believe, but pointing out the fact that many people do not consider them Christian, and why they might come to that. It isn't that personal. Recognizing that some people don't regard LDS as Christian isn't the same as saying that LDS isn't Christian. I also don't think there was a question as to whether members of LDS considered themselves as Christian. Similiarly, Nation of Islam considers itself Islam, but there are many Muslims that wouldn't consider it Islamic for several reasons.
One of the things that attracted me to the religion was the LDS concept of why we are here on this planet. When as a child and going to a different church, I asked why we were created. The I was given was so that God could have company.
It struck me as odd that a being that was supposed to be all loving and kind would create a species that would go through such suffering as humans can go through, and in the end, if they don't live the way he wants them to be burned for eternity, just so he could have company.
I have been taught, as an LDS member, that we are all the literal sons and daughters of God. We have come down to this mortal existence to learn, and grow. An analogy I guess would be a parent helping their child grow and learn to be able to make their way in society.
At the same time we don't believe people will be condemed to a fiery Hell if they don't get everything right. Only those with perfect knowledge that then turn from God will be condemned by being barred by their own actions from being able to be stand any degree of glory. It wiil be thoughts of what could have been, along with not being able to be in God's precense that will torment them, not being immersed in flames. In all my life, I've never met anyone with perfect knowledge.
Even the Apostles, when they walked with Christ, didn't have perfect knowledge.
Relapse wrote:The Doctrine and Covenents are in fact one of the standard works along with the Bible and Book of Mormon.
I know they're a standard work, but I also know that the standard works aren't all equally revered. For example, there are a number of reasons that the Book of Mormon can't be regarded as equivalent to the Bible.
Relapse wrote:
As far as what you believe, you are free to think I'm not Christian with no hard feelings on my part.
Ahtman basically has the right of my stance on this. For example, I've certainly argued that Mormons are Christian with as much frequency as I've argued that they aren't.
I suspect, however, that given the prevalence of Christians that believe Mormons are not Christian, that it will eventually become the de facto opinion both within and without LDS.
sebster wrote:
Mormons believe Jesus was the son of God and the Messiah, and that his crucifixion was for our sins. They believe he rose from the dead and travelled to the Kingdom of Heaven. I'm intrigued as to where you heard otherwise.
I suppose I should have been more specific, they believe he is the messiah, but not in a sense that is consistent with the view of most Christians given the established understanding of Christianity. The vast majority of Christian theological traditions require that the messiah be the embodiment of God, and they have a solid argument.
sebster wrote:
Why would you assume that? Why would you assume anything other than the common meaning given to those words every time it is spoken by Christians - to believe in Jesus is to believe he is the son of God, put on Earth to show the way, and that is only through his forgiveness that a person might join God in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Because that view has its own, well established interpretive problems; again reflected by the concept of the Trinity.
sebster wrote:
Of course, it is perfectly sensible to consider them fundamentally seperate, without considering them 'not Christian'. It's exactly how the Western faiths saw Eastern Orthodox for centuries.
Many of them still do, but the differences are less significant.
To fialize what I was saying about how we regard the book of Mormon,
We believe that almost all of the doctrines of the gospel are taught with much greater perfection and clarity in the Book of Mormon than those same doctrines in the bible
deathholydeath wrote:Generally speaking, the main cause for this deviation is interpretation of the scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Testament (and sometimes further testaments as is the case with the LDS) since both the HB and the GT are canon across the board.
To be fair, very few people consider LDS to be Christian.
This is one of the silliest comments in this thread.
Of course the LDS is Christian. So are Amish, Menonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Catholics and Christian Scientists. They may not follow the mainstream version of US protestantism, but they're certainly Christian.
biccat wrote:
This is one of the silliest comments in this thread.
Of course the LDS is Christian. So are Amish, Menonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Catholics and Christian Scientists. They may not follow the mainstream version of US protestantism, but they're certainly Christian.
Ah, good to hear from the guy that claimed many people (presumably in the US) would be offended by the claim that Jesus was God.
To be clear, when you say "Of course the X is Christian." where X is a group of religious people whose Christianity is up for significant debate you clearly illustrate a particular ignorance of the issues at hand.
dogma wrote:Ah, good to hear from the guy that claimed many people (presumably in the US) would be offended by the claim that Jesus was God.
Given that a lot of religious Americans dispute that "fact", yes, I think they would. Muslims in particular have a major problem with that part of Christian theology.
However, you're confusing opinion with facts.
dogma wrote:To be clear, when you say "Of course the X is Christian." where X is a group of religious people whose Christianity is up for significant debate you clearly illustrate a particular ignorance of the issues at hand.
Well, if you want to give a definition of Christianity that includes Baptists but excludes Mormons, I'd love to hear it. You do, of course, tend to be the expert on definitions.
FWIW: A Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Since this is an integral part of Mormonism, I think they qualify.
A decent argument could be made that only Catholics are Christians, but I think that's a hard sell, especially to most protestants.
Noticed something odd back there, incidentally.
The quote about a woman calling Barack Obama a "muslim."
Although he isn't, why would it matter if he was?
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Noticed something odd back there, incidentally.
The quote about a woman calling Barack Obama a "muslim."
Although he isn't, why would it matter if he was?
biccat wrote:
Given that a lot of religious Americans dispute that "fact", yes, I think they would. Muslims in particular have a major problem with that part of Christian theology.
However, you're confusing opinion with facts.
Disagreement does not imply being offended. Mormons also have a problem with that idea, but one would imagine that, seeing as the Trinity is the dominant position in the US, they and everyone else would be used to it. And, even if they aren't, who cares, politically?
biccat wrote:
Well, if you want to give a definition of Christianity that includes Baptists but excludes Mormons, I'd love to hear it. You do, of course, tend to be the expert on definitions.
Not hard at all: someone who believes in the Trinity, and more broadly, the Nicene Creed.
biccat wrote:
FWIW: A Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Since this is an integral part of Mormonism, I think they qualify.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Noticed something odd back there, incidentally.
The quote about a woman calling Barack Obama a "muslim."
Although he isn't, why would it matter if he was?
Because muslims are terrorists
Ah, of course. Given the actions of the EDL over here, I should have guessed that was the rationale.
biccat wrote:FWIW: A Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Since this is an integral part of Mormonism, I think they qualify.
My understanding is that Christians generally put the dividing line at the Nicene Creed, including the concept (rejecting Arianism) that Jesus IS god, not a separate being. And that Mormons become excluded from this group because they believe Jesus is a separate being.
FWIW in general practice I usually use the same definition that you and Sebster are using; that a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus' divinity and that they need to be saved/redeemed by him. But I recognize that Christians may want to (and do) define it a bit more specifically.
There's also more specific definitions, like "if you support gay marriage you're not a Christian", or "if you don't want to bomb an abortion clinic you're not a Christian", and so on.
Mannahnin wrote:
FWIW in general practice I usually use the same definition that you and Sebster are using; that a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus' divinity and that they need to be saved/redeemed by him. But I recognize that Christians may want to (and do) define it a bit more specifically.
Yeah, but divinity is such a fuzzy concept to begin with.
I said this before, but I think that the introduction of a new holy book marks any faith as distinct from that faith which spawned it, at least in the Abrahamic tradition. Relapse even spoke to The Book of Mormon being the most authentic revelation, which is a common bit of Christian argument against all sorts of OT content.
deathholydeath wrote:As for the Christian candidates? By what criteria do we define Christians? Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant? Mormon?
All of these (thousands of) groups have significantly different ideas of what constitutes Christian identity, doctrine, and dogma.
Generally speaking, the main cause for this deviation is interpretation of the scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Testament (and sometimes further testaments as is the case with the LDS) since both the HB and the GT are canon across the board.
Textually speaking, plenty of basis exists for the statements of the candidates e.g. for homosexuality, reference LEV 20:13 (all historio-critical and etymological debates aside, the Hebrew translation for this passage is very clear). One could also reference Paul's letters for this debate, but the context is less clear due to Paul's propensity for coining new Greek words.
As for misogyny? 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11 as well as the entire last chapter of Judges and many of the mitzvah.
Murder? Reference Leviticus, the Revelation of John, or well, any and most, of the Hebrew Bible. Plenty of situations occur in which murder is sanctioned.
All this to the point that: Christianity is not a religion based solely upon the words of the Jesus Christ (what little we have). Further, interpretation plays a pivotal role in how doctrine develops. For example, Augustine's interpretations of scripture (like the doctrine of original sin) were widely viewed as heresy by the church at large, but accepted later by Imperial decree and so became doctrine (reference Elaine Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels and Beyond Belief).
In the postmodern world, one cannot say interpretations are 'right' or 'wrong,' only whether one agrees or disagrees. Because the candidates are both Americans and Protestant, they have free reign to interpret the scriptures in whatever way they wish. Whether these interpretations are correct or incorrect, again depends on what analytical lens one uses to evaluate their statements. Christianity is not a single monolithic organization with a definition of identity set in stone; the communion is, and has been since its inception, a sectarian milieu. Generally speaking, the only criteria for claiming Christian identity have been a profession of faith in Christ as savior and possibly belief in the trinity-- but again, even this rule has its exceptions. Ergo, no single clean definition for Christian identity exists, only a myriad of possible and equally correct definitions.
My point being that one cannot say whether someone is a real Christian (since no absolute definition exists) or not; only whether one agrees or disagrees with them.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that many of the "religious right" interpret the scriptures isogetically and without regard to literary or historical context and they are therefore wrong. But that is my opinion, and it cannot be empirically proven any more than theirs. For the record, I don't agree with them, and it is my interpretation of events that, yes, they are bigoted (or at least pretend to be... I'm really not sure what Romney actually believes) idiotic, and counterproductive to the American good.
So yeah, there you have it. I hope that all made sense, it's rather late and I'm not entirely certain this is all coming out lucidly.
It is a good post. One issue I find confusing about some self-identified Christians is what seems to be a conflict between their expressed beliefs/opinions and Jesus' teachings. You're absolutely correct that Leviticus is the core doctrinal source of Christian intolerance toward homosexuals/homosexuality, but to my understanding the Old Testanment is supposed to be supplanted by the new covenant Jesus embodies. The old laws and strictures are replaced with a simpler set of directives, most specifically to accept Jesus as your savior and to love thy neighbor as thyself. The latter of which seems fundamentally imcompatible with hating or mistreating gay people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Huffy wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Melissia, that's not appropriate. Most Christians are not bigoted pieces of sputum like the ones who would make those pronouncements.
Most aren't yes, but the most vocal christians are, which is why they have really bad rep.
I think the most offensive/controversial people are always the ones who get the most airtime. Yes, the Westboro Baptists get a bunch of press; that doesn't mind that I think they're representative of most Christians.
dogma wrote:I said this before, but I think that the introduction of a new holy book marks any faith as distinct from that faith which spawned it, at least in the Abrahamic tradition. Relapse even spoke to The Book of Mormon being the most authentic revelation, which is a common bit of Christian argument against all sorts of OT content.
I suppose that's something I could agree with.
After all, Christians don't consider themselves Jewish, despite incorporating the Torah into their holy book. And Muslims consider the Torah the word of God, but certainly aren't Jewish themselves.
Then what counts as a "holy book." Are Syrian Christians not really Christians because they traditionally omitted Revalations? Do new translations count as different books? Are churches who use the King James Bible of a different religion than those who use the New International? What about some of the more bizarre translations, like the New Living Bible?
Mannahnin wrote:Melissia, that's not appropriate. Most Christians are not bigoted pieces of sputum like the ones who would make those pronouncements.
Sure, but the ones in power-- the ones representing Christianity in the political field-- seem to be. So are the biggest Christian organizations in terms of politics.
So the end result is the same as far as government policy goes.
While most Christians in government are against gay marriage, I don't think most of them are for bombing clinics. Let's leave that kind of thing out, okay?
Mannahnin wrote:While most Christians in government are against gay marriage, I don't think most of them are for bombing clinics. Let's leave that kind of thing out, okay?
Given the number of quotes I've read in the teapartyjesus tumbler thread where they have in fact advocated violence on the topic of abortion, I'm not convinced.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Noticed something odd back there, incidentally.
The quote about a woman calling Barack Obama a "muslim."
Although he isn't, why would it matter if he was?
I thought McCain set the bar on how to answer that last time around?
Oh wait, he lost, so I guess Santorum is trying a different tactic to answer the same question?
Mannahnin wrote:Melissia, that's not appropriate. Most Christians are not bigoted pieces of sputum like the ones who would make those pronouncements.
Most aren't yes, but the most vocal christians are, which is why they have really bad rep.
And when you have politicians and public figures alluding to this sort of thing then it would behoove the majority to call these people out rather then silently endorse them...
CT GAMER wrote:The forceful nature by which some in Dakka OT have justified their political stances in recent threads as being "based in Christianity" led me to seek out some of this wisdom for myself.
CT GAMER wrote:The forceful nature by which some in Dakka OT have justified their political stances in recent threads as being "based in Christianity" led me to seek out some of this wisdom for myself.
CT GAMER wrote:The forceful nature by which some in Dakka OT have justified their political stances in recent threads as being "based in Christianity" led me to seek out some of this wisdom for myself.
Or at least chastise their politicians, whom represent them and their views, for calling Homosexuals "terrorists" simply for pushing for equal rights under law. Or the ones that claim that all homosexuals should be executed or put in jail. Or the ones that claim "raising funds for breast cancer research is making men subservient to women". Or the ones that say anyone who's had an abortion is a whore or a prostitute. Or the ones that make craptons of racist comments and constantly attack minorities as lazy and worthless criminals. Or the ones that want to "put judicial activists on the endangered species list" like the grey wolf was (IE through being hunted to near extinction). Or the ones that say we should "empty the clip" on illegal immigrants.
It's not a very happy picture to look at when you have governors and congressmen at both the state and the federal level doing these kinds of things. By silently allowing these things to go on, the majority Christian population is perpetuating them and agreeing with them. Yet somehow people on this forum are wondering why minorities generally don't want to vote Republican.
Whose responsibilty is it to chastise a politician who claims to be a Christian but makes hateful, intolerant, and/or bigoted statements? If Christian organization do not stand up and say "that guy doesn't represent us", does that represent an implicit approval?
I personally don't have a problem with Christianity and have met a number of Christians whom I like and admire. But I do think that the website cited here makes a disturbing point that there appears to be a conflict in how Christian beliefs are protrayed in our current politics and used to justify arguments which seem un-Christian, at least to me as an outsider (albeit one with an interest in politics and some background in religious studies).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Sometimes one can see why fatwas are issued.
Christians don't have fatwas. We're to turn the other cheek and say "thank you sir, may I have another".
Here's the part I like:
Is that the part where Tarantino took part of a quote from the Old Testament, and wrote a bunch more onto it? I'm going to take it as amusing for that to be cited by a Christian, as I presume you know it's not actually a Biblical quote.
Mannahnin wrote:Whose responsibilty is it to chastise a politician who claims to be a Christian but makes hateful, intolerant, and/or bigoted statements?
If Christian organization do not stand up and say "that guy doesn't represent us", does that represent an implicit approval?
When they voted for him/her, yes.
Ignorance of politics isn't really a very good excuse when you're trying to stick your head in politics to begin with, as many Christian organizations are trying to do.
I don't have a problem with Christianity or Christians in general, but I DO have a problem with hate-mongers. That the two groups intersect so much is a very sad thing.
Mannahnin wrote:Whose responsibilty is it to chastise a politician who claims to be a Christian but makes hateful, intolerant, and/or bigoted statements?
If Christian organization do not stand up and say "that guy doesn't represent us", does that represent an implicit approval?
Isn't this the argument that anti-Muslim groups have made about Islamic Terrorism? Isn't that argument also shouted down rather forcefully?
Not by me, at any rate. I say the same thing about them as I do about Christians.
The hatemongers are not representative of the religion, but it is disturbing that there is not a greater and more widespread denunciation of them by the good and normal and reasonable people who are part of the same religion.
Also, in this thread we're talking about elected officials, not terrorists.
Mannahnin wrote:Regardless of whether Osama sincerely believed, the actions he put into practice were betrayals and perversions of all the positive teachings of Islam. Much as the murders and terrorism committed by the KKK were perversions and betrayals of the peaceful teachings of Christianity.
Referring to the hateful philosophy and murderous ideas advanced by Bin Laden as a "pathetic excuse of teachings" is not a reflection on the millions of peaceful Muslims around the world. It is a judgment on the philosophy of hatred and evil which Osama himself supported and recruited others into.
It's unfortunate, but you don't.
You gave "millions of peaceful Muslims" a pass on OBL (and rightly so), but condem Christians (and Christianity I suppose) for not speaking out against what you deem improper comments by religious political figures.
Mannahnin wrote:Whose responsibilty is it to chastise a politician who claims to be a Christian but makes hateful, intolerant, and/or bigoted statements? If Christian organization do not stand up and say "that guy doesn't represent us", does that represent an implicit approval?
I'm pretty sure the fact that there's no way that someone who says these really hateful things will be elected on a national level means that there's enough Christians who disagree with them for such generalizations as I mentioned to be considered inaccurate.
Mannahnin wrote:I personally don't have a problem with Christianity and have met a number of Christians whom I like and admire. But I do think that the website cited here makes a disturbing point that there appears to be a conflict in how Christian beliefs are protrayed in our current politics and used to justify arguments which seem un-Christian, at least to me as an outsider (albeit one with an interest in politics and some background in religious studies).
There's several avenues to go down from here, regarding this subject. I'll engage you on the topic, because I'm confident that you'll discuss this in good faith. I've found that typing thoughtful responses that are met with "hurrr nuh uh" is to be colossal waste of time.
I'd like to know what conflicts you refer to, so I can address them.
As to the taking care of the poor thing, I completely agree that it seems that many Christian politicians may seem to be uncharitable when it comes to matters of policy. I'm sure it varies wildly from candidate to candidate but I would imagine that there's decent plurality (I won't say majority, as I don't have the figures handy.) that believes that charitable giving should be left up to the individual and not mandated by the government. Personally, I believe that this line of thinking falls apart when you get into subjects like corporate personhood and factor in how much of America's money is controlled by people whose only loyalty is to their bottom line and their stockholders, but I don't doubt the sincerity of most people who hold this belief.
As far as Gay Marriage is concerned, I consider marriage to be a legal matter so I don't see the problem. Whether or not being gay is a sin isn't an issue, at least to me it isn't, because everyone sins every day. People who are overly judgmental need to remember Romans 3:23:
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
So without even getting into whether or not being gay is a sin (I have several gay friends, most of whom are much nicer people than I am ) I say to you that is not, in my opinion, for other people to judge them. Anyway, I have to go to class in a bit, so I'll check back in later.
Monster Rain wrote:I'm pretty sure the fact that there's no way that someone who says these really hateful things will be elected on a national level
Gingrich and Santorum both stand a good chance of getting nominated on a national level. Perhaps if one of them does, we'll see if this really is a fact?
Monster Rain wrote:I said elected, not nominated. Let's leave the goalpoasts where they are, shall we?
I shouldn't have to explain that the primaries are all about being extreme.
... and I shouldn't have to explain this part:
Melissia wrote:Perhaps if one of them does, we'll see if this really is a fact?
IE, if either of those gets nominated, it certainly would test your statement. You know, seeing as it would then have them for election on a national level. And they've both had a history of racist, homophobic, and sexist statements.
Newsflash: People use the words of others (In this case Jesus) to justify their own twisted and hateful ideas!
If it wasn't Jesus, it would be Adam Smith. If it wasn't Adam Smith, it would be Ayn Rand. If it wasn't Ayn Rand it would be, Karl marx. If is wasn't Marx, it would be whoever was convenient.
Monster Rain wrote:I said elected, not nominated. Let's leave the goalpoasts where they are, shall we?
I shouldn't have to explain that the primaries are all about being extreme.
... and I shouldn't have to explain this part:
Melissia wrote:Perhaps if one of them does, we'll see if this really is a fact?
IE, if either of those gets nominated, it certainly would test your statement. You know, seeing as it would then have them for election on a national level. And they've both had a history of racist, homophobic, and sexist statements.
I could have sworn the post I responded to read a bit differently a moment ago.
I suppose you'd then have to prove that the reason they were elected was because of their "racism" and homophobia, and not any of the other pillars of their respective campaigns though.
Monster Rain wrote:I'm pretty sure the fact that there's no way that someone who says these really hateful things will be elected on a national level
Gingrich and Santorum both stand a good chance of getting nominated on a national level. Perhaps if one of them does, we'll see if this really is a fact?
Well, Bachman was elected Congresswoman, And Santorum had been elected Senator.
Mannahnin wrote:Regardless of whether Osama sincerely believed, the actions he put into practice were betrayals and perversions of all the positive teachings of Islam. Much as the murders and terrorism committed by the KKK were perversions and betrayals of the peaceful teachings of Christianity.
Referring to the hateful philosophy and murderous ideas advanced by Bin Laden as a "pathetic excuse of teachings" is not a reflection on the millions of peaceful Muslims around the world. It is a judgment on the philosophy of hatred and evil which Osama himself supported and recruited others into.
It's unfortunate, but you don't.
You gave "millions of peaceful Muslims" a pass on OBL (and rightly so), but condem Christians (and Christianity I suppose) for not speaking out against what you deem improper comments by religious political figures.
You are misunderstanding or deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote there. In the quoted section, as you should be able to clearly see, I treat Christianity and Christian terrorists the exact same way I do Islam and Islamic terrorists.
As I already pointed out, in this thread we're not talking about the words of abhorred terrorists. We're talking about hateful or disconcerting rhetoric coming from elected officials or national candidates who actually get voted for. If a political candidate in the US or another first-world nation got elected while spouted nasty Islamist rhetoric, perverting the Koran into something hateful, I'd be equally condemnatory.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Whose responsibilty is it to chastise a politician who claims to be a Christian but makes hateful, intolerant, and/or bigoted statements? If Christian organization do not stand up and say "that guy doesn't represent us", does that represent an implicit approval?
I'm pretty sure the fact that there's no way that someone who says these really hateful things will be elected on a national level means that there's enough Christians who disagree with them for such generalizations as I mentioned to be considered inaccurate.
As noted, folks like Bachman and Santorum have been elected to national office in the past, and there are people who make similar public statements who are presently in office. From my perspective, this seems to indicate that using religion as a tool of divisiveness and us-them politics seems to have at least some track record of success.
Monster Rain wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I personally don't have a problem with Christianity and have met a number of Christians whom I like and admire. But I do think that the website cited here makes a disturbing point that there appears to be a conflict in how Christian beliefs are protrayed in our current politics and used to justify arguments which seem un-Christian, at least to me as an outsider (albeit one with an interest in politics and some background in religious studies).
There's several avenues to go down from here, regarding this subject. I'll engage you on the topic, because I'm confident that you'll discuss this in good faith. I've found that typing thoughtful responses that are met with "hurrr nuh uh" is to be colossal waste of time.
I'd like to know what conflicts you refer to, so I can address them.
Well, you go into talking about one of them below. Based on what I've read of Jesus' teachings, it would seem to me that a cornerstone of Christian politics would logically be support of the poor. But in practice it doesn't seem to work out that way. The last prominent Christian politician I remember talking a lot about the poor, about peace, and about self-sacrifice was Jimmy Carter.
Monster Rain wrote:As far as Gay Marriage is concerned, I consider marriage to be a legal matter so I don't see the problem. Whether or not being gay is a sin isn't an issue, at least to me it isn't, because everyone sins every day. People who are overly judgmental need to remember Romans 3:23:
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
So without even getting into whether or not being gay is a sin (I have several gay friends, most of whom are much nicer people than I am ) I say to you that is not, in my opinion, for other people to judge them. Anyway, I have to go to class in a bit, so I'll check back in later.
And this is one of the reasons I respect you as a person. You are able to reconcile your religious beliefs with tolerance toward your fellow man and with modern conceptions of human rights. Given what Jesus said about how to treat other people, and about not judging, and about caring for people even if you believe them to be sinners, your position seems to me the one most consistent with Christianity. But your position does not seem to be one held by prominent Christian politicians. At least not one that's publicly spoken (except maybe by Democrats, like Obama). And I think it really should be publicly spoken. Christians shouldn't be hearing only the condemnatory position, and seeing people who are intolerant of gay marriage as the only ones representing their religious views in the public sphere. I think it also does a disservice to Christianity and Christians that non-Christians like me only see these jerks up there representing their views as Christian ones. It gives the false impression that you're all like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:The House of Representatives is full of crazy people on both sides of the aisle..
While true, IME when someone makes this kind of comment it's often a way of avoiding or minimizing the issue. "Both sides do it' only matters if we're playing a game of tit-for-tat. But if the point is to get red of the crazy and bad people, then if crazy people are on both sides of the aisle, then all of those crazy people should be criticized. That way hopefully they get thrown out of office in the next election, once their craziness is pointed out and made obvious.
Implicit in the popularity of these figures is a terrible education system. I can't think of a single western country where those sorts of views are tolerated in public figures, let alone encouraged.
For comparison, the Christian Party in the UK got a grant total of 0.1% in the 2010 general election.
Though it does look like Obama is going to sweep back into a second term in office, so maybe these peoples' time is over.
Easy E wrote:Newsflash: People use the words of others (In this case Jesus) to justify their own twisted and hateful ideas!
If it wasn't Jesus, it would be Adam Smith. If it wasn't Adam Smith, it would be Ayn Rand. If it wasn't Ayn Rand it would be, Karl marx. If is wasn't Marx, it would be whoever was convenient.
Thanks for telling us what we all already know.
I never understand this type of post.
Because people as a whole (says you) have a habit of deplorable/hypocritical behavior it shouldn't be discussed or opposed, or people should just accept it?
What is your point in pointing out the obvious exactly?
The thing to remember in this is the fact that it is possible to find non Christians, liberals, OWS people, and others with similar quotes that can either be twisted, taken out of context, or in context to reveal departures from professed beliefs.
Go to any conservative web site and you could find threads similar to this one.
Just saying this to back up Easy's point.
Relapse wrote:The thing to remember in this is the fact that it is possible to find non Christians, liberals, OWS people, and others with similar quotes that can either be twisted, taken out of context, or in context to reveal departures from professed beliefs.
A) Well, then the first question is whether the comments are truly taken out of context. If the quotes represent their actual and consistently-espoused positions, then nothing is being twisted. The irony of the site's humor is placing the quote out of context into Jesus' mouth, but that doesn't mean the politician in question is being misrepresented. Rather their words are being contrasted with the teachings of the moral figure whom they claim to be attempting to emulate. If there is a conflict there, without the politician's words being twisted or misrepresented, then there would seem to be at least an element of hypocrisy present.
B) Your post seems like an attempt to dismiss the issue by saying "other people do it too"; but as our mothers taught us, two wrongs don't make a right. Please let me know if I've mistaken you, and you do actually mean to participate further.
Mannahnin wrote: "Both sides do it' only matters if we're playing a game of tit-for-tat. But if the point is to get rid of the crazy and bad people, then if crazy people are on both sides of the aisle, then all of those crazy people should be criticized. That way hopefully they get thrown out of office in the next election, once their craziness is pointed out and made obvious.
Relapse wrote:The thing to remember in this is the fact that it is possible to find non Christians, liberals, OWS people, and others with similar quotes that can either be twisted, taken out of context, or in context to reveal departures from professed beliefs.
A) Well, then the first question is whether the comments are truly taken out of context. If the quotes represent their actual and consistently-espoused positions, then nothing is being twisted. The irony of the site's humor is placing the quote out of context into Jesus' mouth, but that doesn't mean the politician in question is being misrepresented. Rather their words are being contrasted with the teachings of the moral figure whom they claim to be attempting to emulate. If there is a conflict there, without the politician's words being twisted or misrepresented, then there would seem to be at least an element of hypocrisy present.
The quote in the OP is indeed out of context as I explained in an earlier post.
I don't mean to excuse anything by saying other people do it too. It''s just that there is similar hypocrasy in all camps and it often seems to me that liberal hypocrites are lionized while conservatives recieve the main share of the bashing.
Relapse wrote:The thing to remember in this is the fact that it is possible to find non Christians, liberals, OWS people, and others with similar quotes that can either be twisted, taken out of context, or in context to reveal departures from professed beliefs.
A) Well, then the first question is whether the comments are truly taken out of context. If the quotes represent their actual and consistently-espoused positions, then nothing is being twisted. The irony of the site's humor is placing the quote out of context into Jesus' mouth, but that doesn't mean the politician in question is being misrepresented. Rather their words are being contrasted with the teachings of the moral figure whom they claim to be attempting to emulate. If there is a conflict there, without the politician's words being twisted or misrepresented, then there would seem to be at least an element of hypocrisy present.
The quote in the OP is indeed out of context as I explained in an earlier post.
I appreciate that, Jake. Thanks for engaging sincerely in the discussion. I'm not sure that I agree, but I appreciate your position. Yes, he said there is a functioning safety net, and that that's not why he's concerned about them.
1) Is that a legimate line of reasoning? Is the safety net truly functioning if, for example, 1 in 5 American children do not consistently get sufficient nutritious food?
2) Even if we as a society consider the present level of hunger and poverty acceptable, do people who follow Christ's teachings feel obligated to pursue a higher standard, to feed more of the hungry, clothe more of the naked, and care for more of the sick?
3) Given the Mitt Romney supported and helped to implement comprehensive health care reform in Massachusetts, to ensure that his citizens had greater access to care, is it inconsistent for him to now espouse that the citizens of the United States as a whole do not need the same kind of access? Which position is more consistent with Christian values? When he was Governor and he helped extend coverage to more of the poor and the needy? Or now as a national candidate, when he backs away from that position and those actions?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:I don't mean to excuse anything by saying other people do it too. It''s just that there is similar hypocrasy in all camps and it often seems to me that liberal hypocrites are lionized while conservatives recieve the main share of the bashing.
If you see that happening, then by all means point it out. I hope I have not engaged in such actions. I don't think bad behavior by one person can ever excuse misbehavior by someone else just because they're in opposing political camps. Again, two wrongs don't make a right.
The quote in the OP is indeed out of context as I explained in an earlier post.
And You are missing the point of the site.
That being said the site provides the initial context in a direct link attached to each pic, so the original context is not being ignored and is linked.
But that is really not the point.
The point of the site is to take the words and statements of those that have claimed to be Christians and who have attempted to act as if they speak for Christ and his followers (and who have demonized and attacked others for not being so) and asking in pictoral form for the viewer to imagine if what they have said is something that Jesus would have said.
It is very clear that very often what they are saying and doing bears very little resembelence to the teachings of Christianity that they claim is their foundation and justification.
The quotes are real and unedited.
The pictoral presentation is useful to drive this point home.
So even if we want to take the original quote in the OP and claim it is out of context, what we are really looking at i s a large body of quotes that demonstrate a general anti-Christian mentality and focus, yet claiming to be rooted in Christianity. Some are so hateful and directly offensive that context is irrelevant...
I'm gonna have to agree with mannahan, if someone says they are christian and makes hateful statemens, it is automatically assumed everyone in that religion is like that, as wrong as that is, and as untrue as that is.
I'm gonna have to agree with mannahan, if someone says they are christian and makes hateful statemens, it is automatically assumed everyone in that religion is like that, as wrong as that is, and as untrue as that is.
I'm gonna have to agree with mannahan, if someone says they are christian and makes hateful statemens, it is automatically assumed everyone in that religion is like that, as wrong as that is, and as untrue as that is.
I don't think that's what I wrote, sorry.
Whose responsibilty is it to chastise a politician who claims to be a Christian but makes hateful, intolerant, and/or bigoted statements? If Christian organization do not stand up and say "that guy doesn't represent us", does that represent an implicit approval?
Relapse wrote:I don't mean to excuse anything by saying other people do it too. It''s just that there is similar hypocrasy in all camps and it often seems to me that liberal hypocrites are lionized while conservatives recieve the main share of the bashing.
Not entirely.
Winston Churchill was as Right was you would like, and he's a national hero now after years of lionising, arguably undeserved lionising too.
I'm on my phone checking in between classes. My statements about the house of representatives weren't supposed to be "tit for tat" or to prohibit people from criticism. My point was that I shouldn't have to defend the statements of extremists in this discussion. There's a larger point to be made about how the districts of congressmen allow unsavory people to be elected, but I'm not banging that out with my thumbs.
Monster Rain wrote:I'm on my phone checking in between classes. My statements about the house of representatives weren't supposed to be "tit for tat" or to prohibit people from criticism.
I didn't think you meant to; I just see that kind of point raised most often kind of reflexively.
Monster Rain wrote:My point was that I shouldn't have to defend the statements of extremists in this discussion.
That's reasonable. From my perspective Rick Santorum is a pretty scary extremist, but he's the co front-runner for the nomination at the moment. .
Monster Rain wrote: There's a larger point to be made about how the districts of congressmen allow unsavory people to be elected, but I'm not banging that out with my thumbs.
That's a good point, though I think a bit of a divergence from the main issue of the thread. I know the way the topic was raised wasn't the friendliest way to appoach the subject, but I find the topic quite interesting.
Joey wrote:Implicit in the popularity of these figures is a terrible education system. I can't think of a single western country where those sorts of views are tolerated in public figures, let alone encouraged. For comparison, the Christian Party in the UK got a grant total of 0.1% in the 2010 general election. Though it does look like Obama is going to sweep back into a second term in office, so maybe these peoples' time is over.
Yet our higher education system is better than yours. Plus we fight mountain lions...daily. Jealous?
dogma wrote:I suppose I should have been more specific, they believe he is the messiah, but not in a sense that is consistent with the view of most Christians given the established understanding of Christianity. The vast majority of Christian theological traditions require that the messiah be the embodiment of God, and they have a solid argument.
I think you're probably overstating what are, to most Christians, obscure points on theology.
If you asked a Christian if Mormons count as Christians, and they said no, it'd be because of bigamy, or because Joseph Smith made up his own book, not because of differences in the trinity.
Many of them still do, but the differences are less significant.
Excatly. There is a whole range of options for treating another organisation, than just a simply is/isn't part of Christianity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I suspect, however, that given the prevalence of Christians that believe Mormons are not Christian, that it will eventually become the de facto opinion both within and without LDS.
Given the hard sell being made by the LDS, as in they've hired marketing firms and everything, to engage with mainstream Christianity and highlight the similarities between Mormonism and other Christian faiths, I find that very unlikely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Sometimes one can see why fatwas are issued.
Now I want a picture of Jesus saying 'now I see why fatwas are issued' because holy gak, fraz, you just don't fething get it.
You want to worry about people making fun of Christianity? Well then be Christian.
biccat wrote:
Then what counts as a "holy book." Are Syrian Christians not really Christians because they traditionally omitted Revalations? Do new translations count as different books? Are churches who use the King James Bible of a different religion than those who use the New International? What about some of the more bizarre translations, like the New Living Bible?
I generally consider any book that attempts to convey the meaning of the original text of the Bible to be the Bible, with variances in translation and canon marking differences in denomination.
The NLT is a weird one, but I don't know of any denomination, or church that uses it as anything other than a teaching aid, or tool for conversion. For example, Billy Graham famously used Living Letters in the course of his evangelism.
Mannahnin wrote:Whose responsibilty is it to chastise a politician who claims to be a Christian but makes hateful, intolerant, and/or bigoted statements? If Christian organization do not stand up and say "that guy doesn't represent us", does that represent an implicit approval?
I personally don't have a problem with Christianity and have met a number of Christians whom I like and admire. But I do think that the website cited here makes a disturbing point that there appears to be a conflict in how Christian beliefs are protrayed in our current politics and used to justify arguments which seem un-Christian, at least to me as an outsider (albeit one with an interest in politics and some background in religious studies).
Yeah, it seems to me a fairly simple point, of lots of people claiming to be Christian who then go about saying lots of things that are very un-Christian.
And then a thread in which lots of people really, really don't get that very simple thing.
Your first sentence is a little more tricky. Bigoted, offensive comments are frequently denounced by various church groups, but rarely receive major media attention. Same as denouncements of Islamic bigotry. I'd agree with you if there was genuine silence on the issue, but the issue is more one of perceived silence, due to the nature of the media.
sebster wrote:
I think you're probably overstating what are, to most Christians, obscure points on theology.
If you asked a Christian if Mormons count as Christians, and they said no, it'd be because of bigamy, or because Joseph Smith made up his own book, not because of differences in the trinity.
The fact that Joseph Smith claimed to have had a series of revelations from God, on which the Mormon faith is based (ie. Joseph Smith made up his own book.) is legitimate grounds to consider someone something other than Christian.
sebster wrote:
Given the hard sell being made by the LDS, as in they've hired marketing firms and everything, to engage with mainstream Christianity and highlight the similarities between Mormonism and other Christian faiths, I find that very unlikely.
But the majority of the campaign is centered on the idea that Mormons aren't weird, crazy, cultists (Which is a prevalent opinion in certain Christian circles.), not that they're Christian.
Catching up on the thread after a long day of class. Bear with me.
Mannahnin wrote:As noted, folks like Bachman and Santorum have been elected to national office in the past, and there are people who make similar public statements who are presently in office. From my perspective, this seems to indicate that using religion as a tool of divisiveness and us-them politics seems to have at least some track record of success.
While the use of wedge-issues certainly isn't an exclusively Christian tactic, I have to agree that this is generally true. I don't know what to say about it other than people enjoy being divided into groups that dislike each other. I attribute most of the gullibility of the people who are swayed by this type of rhetoric, as far as the Christians are concerned, to ignorance of the religion that they claim to hold so dear. I don't understand how someone could really read what Jesus said and find any reason to believe that they're justified in hating another human being.
Matthew 5 wrote:43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others?
It's not like he's being vague here. Or here.
Matthew 22 wrote:36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Mannahnin wrote:And this is one of the reasons I respect you as a person. You are able to reconcile your religious beliefs with tolerance toward your fellow man and with modern conceptions of human rights. Given what Jesus said about how to treat other people, and about not judging, and about caring for people even if you believe them to be sinners, your position seems to me the one most consistent with Christianity. But your position does not seem to be one held by prominent Christian politicians. At least not one that's publicly spoken (except maybe by Democrats, like Obama). And I think it really should be publicly spoken. Christians shouldn't be hearing only the condemnatory position, and seeing people who are intolerant of gay marriage as the only ones representing their religious views in the public sphere. I think it also does a disservice to Christianity and Christians that non-Christians like me only see these jerks up there representing their views as Christian ones. It gives the false impression that you're all like that.
I can't really say anything other than that I think they're missing the point.
Mannahnin wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:I'm on my phone checking in between classes. My statements about the house of representatives weren't supposed to be "tit for tat" or to prohibit people from criticism.
I didn't think you meant to; I just see that kind of point raised most often kind of reflexively.
I know what you mean.
Mannahnin wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:My point was that I shouldn't have to defend the statements of extremists in this discussion.
That's reasonable. From my perspective Rick Santorum is a pretty scary extremist, but he's the co front-runner for the nomination at the moment. .
I don't know how scary he is, but I do think he's a jerk. It genuinely makes me sad to think how many people he's alienated from Christianity with his rhetoric.
Mannahnin wrote:
Monster Rain wrote: There's a larger point to be made about how the districts of congressmen allow unsavory people to be elected, but I'm not banging that out with my thumbs.
That's a good point, though I think a bit of a divergence from the main issue of the thread. I know the way the topic was raised wasn't the friendliest way to appoach the subject, but I find the topic quite interesting.
That line of conversation is a bit off topic, I suppose.
sebster wrote:
dogma wrote:I suppose I should have been more specific, they believe he is the messiah, but not in a sense that is consistent with the view of most Christians given the established understanding of Christianity. The vast majority of Christian theological traditions require that the messiah be the embodiment of God, and they have a solid argument.
I think you're probably overstating what are, to most Christians, obscure points on theology.
I think that you're understating what Christians know about theology, at least in my experience.
The concept of the trinity is a pretty big deal. I remember learning about it at a very early age as a Methodist, and I would imagine that Catholics have it mentioned to them in Catechism now and then.
dogma wrote:The fact that Joseph Smith claimed to have had a series of revelations from God, on which the Mormon faith is based (ie. Joseph Smith made up his own book.) is legitimate grounds to consider someone something other than Christian.
Given the importance of revelation in many Christian faiths, I think you'd find you're excluding a lot more faiths than is sensible.
But the majority of the campaign is centered on the idea that Mormons aren't weird, crazy, cultists (Which is a prevalent opinion in certain Christian circles.), not that they're Christian.
I've seen the ads. They talk about doctrinal similarities. As in, they talk about the one doctrinal similarity that actually matters - they believe in Jesus just like other Christians do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I think that you're understating what Christians know about theology, at least in my experience.
The concept of the trinity is a pretty big deal. I remember learning about it at a very early age as a Methodist, and I would imagine that Catholics have it mentioned to them in Catechism now and then.
All I can do is go with what Christians I have known worry about - faith in Jesus and a commitment to good works. They talk about the other stuff, but it's all just intellectual. When that conversation happens it feels to me to have the same tone as a coversation about 3rd ed WHFB rules, a fun intellectual exercise but with absolutely no modern meaning.
Mannahnin wrote:As noted, folks like Bachman and Santorum have been elected to national office in the past, and there are people who make similar public statements who are presently in office. From my perspective, this seems to indicate that using religion as a tool of divisiveness and us-them politics seems to have at least some track record of success.
While the use of wedge-issues certainly isn't an exclusively Christian tactic, I have to agree that this is generally true. I don't know what to say about it other than people enjoy being divided into groups that dislike each other. I attribute most of the gullibility of the people who are swayed by this type of rhetoric, as far as the Christians are concerned, to ignorance of the religion that they claim to hold so dear. I don't understand how someone could really read what Jesus said and find any reason to believe that they're justified in hating another human being.
To be fair, wedge issues are noticeably more effective in Congressional elections, due to the restricted constituency; especially in the House where gerrymandering can have an effect. At the Presidential they are noticeably less important, at least in the general election; during the primaries the need to curry favor with the party faithful changes things.
As to ignorance of religion: My dad (a minister, for those that don't know) used to say that most people stop thinking about God when they stop going to Sunday school, so their understanding of faith never really progresses beyond that of your average 10 year old.
Sunday Christian, is the term, I believe.
Monster Rain wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I think it also does a disservice to Christianity and Christians that non-Christians like me only see these jerks up there representing their views as Christian ones. It gives the false impression that you're all like that.
I can't really say anything other than that I think they're missing the point.
It all makes sense now. Christian fundamentalism isn't after religious purity, or political achievement. No, the truth is far more sinister. Christian fundamentalism exists so Richard Dawkins can sell books based on dime-store philosophy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Given the importance of revelation in many Christian faiths, I think you'd find you're excluding a lot more faiths than is sensible.
Revelation is important, but one of the central tenets of Christianity is that the Bible, either on its own or via Jesus' divinity, is the supreme (or only) revelation of God.
sebster wrote:
I've seen the ads. They talk about doctrinal similarities. As in, they talk about the one doctrinal similarity that actually matters - they believe in Jesus just like other Christians do.
I've seen them too, mostly on Youtube, but I haven't watched them all the way through in a while; I'll go look them up later.
sebster wrote:
All I can do is go with what Christians I have known worry about - faith in Jesus and a commitment to good works. They talk about the other stuff, but it's all just intellectual. When that conversation happens it feels to me to have the same tone as a coversation about 3rd ed WHFB rules, a fun intellectual exercise but with absolutely no modern meaning.
I think you'll find that most conversations on religious classification are little more than fun intellectual exercises.
dogma wrote:
Revelation is important, but one of the central tenets of Christianity is that the Bible, either on its own or via Jesus' divinity, is the supreme (or only) revelation of God.
Can you back this up? Can you demonstrate where the Christian community (all Christians everywhere) came together and decided on a universally acceptable form for the Bible? Or decided, as you state that the bible "is the supreme or only revelation of God"? Please include citation from an authoritative source--i.e. not wikipedia.
Christianity is not Islam. There is no seal of the prophets in Christianity which prohibits further revelation. Further, the Bible only has a 'canon' (sealed and immutable) status within the Roman Catholic Church-- what is and is not included within canon scripture varies within the protestant and orthodox traditions. Would you exclude Gnostic and Mystic Christians from this mix as well? Even within Catholicism this isn't set in stone either. Consider the works of Theresa of Avila or Saint John of the Cross. Canonized saints whose works, based on vision and revelation from God, have entered into doctrinal tradition.
deathholydeath wrote:
Can you back this up? Can you demonstrate where the Christian community (all Christians everywhere) came together and decided on a universally acceptable form for the Bible? Or decided, as you state that the bible "is the supreme or only revelation of God"? Please include citation from an authoritative source--i.e. not wikipedia.
Ah, this game! I'm good at this game.
First, Wikipedia is, if well cited, no more or less authoritative than any other source. People that say otherwise are most likely trying to cling to the ivory tower.
Second, I never said that "all Christians everywhere" (Which is begging the question anyway.) came together an decided anything, though if you want an event, the Council of Nicaea is a good one to start with.
deathholydeath wrote:
Christianity is not Islam. There is no seal of the prophets in Christianity which prohibits further revelation. Further, the Bible only has a 'canon' (sealed and immutable) status within the Roman Catholic Church-- what is and is not included within canon scripture varies within the protestant and orthodox traditions. Would you exclude Gnostic and Mystic Christians from this mix as well?
I already addressed the issue of canon, I'd rather not reiterate. As for further revelation, its might not be excluded "de jure" but it is "de facto".
deathholydeath wrote:
Can you back this up? Can you demonstrate where the Christian community (all Christians everywhere) came together and decided on a universally acceptable form for the Bible? Or decided, as you state that the bible "is the supreme or only revelation of God"? Please include citation from an authoritative source--i.e. not wikipedia.
Ah, this game! I'm good at this game.
First, Wikipedia is, if well cited, no more or less authoritative than any other source. People that say otherwise are most likely trying to cling to the ivory tower.
Or trying to maintain some level of academic integrity. Citing from wikipedia is an awful idea. Citing from the sources that wikipedia articles cite is slightly better since you've gone directly to the source and the source (presumably) has a known author.
dogma wrote: Second, I never said that "all Christians everywhere" (Which is begging the question anyway.) came together an decided anything, though if you want an event, the Council of Nicaea is a good one to start with.
All Christians at the Council of Nicaea did not agree-- take the gnostics for example or the arguments between St. John and St. Augustine. Also, the council was foundational in causing the split between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.
And since you can't cite any relevant examples of universal consensus (because non exist) you can't create a working definition of Christianity so you cannot exclude Mormonism.
dogma wrote:I already addressed the issue of canon, I'd rather not reiterate. As for further revelation, its might not be excluded "de jure" but it is "de facto".
It's not. Pentecostal and Assemblies of God churches engage in prophecy on a regular basis. Have you ever been to a revival? Born witness to speaking in tongues?
Look at this guy's website: http://www.jimfeeney.org/ There are thousands like it. Can you maintain they aren't Christians?
And, I'm not mad. Just asking you to back up your arguments.
Monster Rain wrote: Revelation 22:18-19 mentions that the Bible shouldn't be added to or taken away from.
The "Bible" wasn't compiled when Revelation was written. The warning refers to the letter of Revelation itself.
deathholydeath wrote:
Or trying to maintain some level of academic integrity. Citing from wikipedia is an awful idea. Citing from the sources that wikipedia articles cite is slightly better since you've gone directly to the source and the source (presumably) has a known author.
Sure, in academic articles. This isn't an academic article, its a message board about Warhammer.
To put this in context, in case you don't know, I do this for a living. I know more about academic integrity than most people because I'm an academic, and even I think the ivory tower is a bunch of crap. The type of citation you're talking about is either an appeal to authority, or the admission to the absence of qualified knowledge, the latter of which should end the conversation by way of ignorance.
deathholydeath wrote:
All Christians at the Council of Nicaea did not agree-- take the gnostics for example or the arguments between St. John and St. Augustine. Also, the council was foundational in causing the split between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.
And since you can't cite any relevant examples of universal consensus (because non exist) you can't create a working definition of Christianity so you cannot exclude Mormonism.
And more begging of the question. Here's a tip, you can't assume "all Christians" could not agree at a defining moment of Christianity without first defining what a Christian is.
Regardless, tell me, does your nonexistent working definition of Christianity include Hindus? I mean, if I can't create a working definition of Christianity, then surely neither can you, which means Christianity is undefined, which means it means anything and everything, and is therefore without meaning.
deathholydeath wrote:
It's not. Pentecostal and Assemblies of God churches engage in prophecy on a regular basis. Have you ever been to a revival? Born witness to speaking in tongues?
Yes to both.
Either way, prophecy and speaking in tongues are not tacit to revelation in Christian theology.
deathholydeath wrote:
And, I'm not mad. Just asking you to back up your arguments.
You could have just asked, instead of pretending to an objection from logic.
deathholydeath wrote:
Or trying to maintain some level of academic integrity. Citing from wikipedia is an awful idea. Citing from the sources that wikipedia articles cite is slightly better since you've gone directly to the source and the source (presumably) has a known author.
Sure, in academic articles. This isn't an academic article, its a message board about Warhammer.
To put this in context, in case you don't know, I do this for a living. I know more about academic integrity than most people because I'm an academic, and even I think the ivory tower is a bunch of crap. The type of citation you're talking about is either an appeal to authority, or the admission to the absence of qualified knowledge, the latter of which should end the conversation by way of ignorance.
That would be why I used the term "authoritative." This is an anonymous forum, not a debate between known scholars.
dogma wrote:
deathholydeath wrote:
All Christians at the Council of Nicaea did not agree-- take the gnostics for example or the arguments between St. John and St. Augustine. Also, the council was foundational in causing the split between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.
And since you can't cite any relevant examples of universal consensus (because non exist) you can't create a working definition of Christianity so you cannot exclude Mormonism.
And more begging of the question. Here's a tip, you can't assume "all Christians" could not agree at a defining moment of Christianity without first defining what a Christian is.
Regardless, tell me, does your nonexistent working definition of Christianity include Hindus? I mean, if I can't create a working definition of Christianity, then surely neither can you, which means Christianity is undefined, which means it means anything and everything, and is therefore without meaning.
deathholydeath wrote:
It's not. Pentecostal and Assemblies of God churches engage in prophecy on a regular basis. Have you ever been to a revival? Born witness to speaking in tongues?
Yes to both.
Either way, prophecy and speaking in tongues are not tacit to revelation in Christian theology.
deathholydeath wrote:
And, I'm not mad. Just asking you to back up your arguments.
You could have just asked, instead of pretending to an objection from logic.
It wasn't an objection from logic, not even an attempt. It was a pretty specific question-- can you cite evidence? But I will concede to rhetorical arguments on my side in this case. And yes, this is a board on the internetz for people who play with toy soldiers, but I still like to have a little evidence every now and then, especially given the volatile nature of the discussion.
See, I do this for a living as well, and yes, I have my grievances with the Academy, but the "tower" gives some legitimacy to our research. It's a complicated problem.
But to the point,
Essentially, I'm arguing from an extremely relative standpoint (which is annoying, I know). And yes, my point is that no hard and fast definition of Christianity exists. The term is essentially meaningless and by extension so is the argument that Mormons are not Christians. Any definition can be countered by another. Much like the term "religion" there is no set of criteria for what constitutes Christianity; one can only talk about groups and what they practice. Mormons claim to be Christians and, in my opinion, no-one can gainsay them because no absolute definition exists. I respect that we need a linguistic system for identifying groups, but you know as well as I do that these systems fail at a certain level. In any case, we're both asking the other to prove concepts that cannot be proven on any real level. So perhaps we should just drop it. Mormonism and the validity of revelation isn't actually the subject of this thread anyway.
February 21, 2012, 4:20 PM Billy Graham’s Son Questions Obama’s Faith
By ERIK ECKHOLM
5:01 p.m. | Updated The Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham, said on Tuesday that he was not sure if President Obama was a true Christian and that he could not definitively say that the president was not a Muslim.
“He’s come out saying that he’s a Christian,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. Obama in an interview on the MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “The question is, what is a Christian?”
Asked if he would declare that Mr. Obama was not a Muslim, Mr. Graham replied, “I can’t say categorically, because Islam has gotten a free pass under Obama.”
Mr. Graham cited the rise of Islamic parties in the Middle East as part of the Arab Spring and what he called a weak American response to the growing persecution of Christian minorities in Africa and the Middle East.
“All I know,” Mr. Graham said, is that Mr. Obama “seems to be more concerned about” the Muslims of the world than “the Christians that are being murdered in the Muslim countries.”
“Barack Obama is an incredible man,” he said. “He could be speaking to these countries now, demanding that they protect the Christians.”
In fact, the Obama Administration has spoken out for the rights of religious minorities and has condemned the growing violence against the Coptic Christians in Egypt, for example, calling for punishment of those responsible. But it has not heeded the call by Mr. Graham and some other evangelicals to threaten an immediate end to American aid to Egypt or other countries where Christians have suffered.
Under Islamic law, Mr. Graham volunteered, “the Muslim world sees Barack Obama as a Muslim” because his father and previous generations were Muslim.
Mr. Graham, 59, is president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and of Samaritan’s Purse, an international Christian relief organization.
“If he says he’s a Christian, I’m not going to say he’s not,” Mr. Graham said of the president. “For me, the definition of a Christian is whether we have given our life to Christ and are following him in faith and we have trusted him as our lord and savior.”
This is not the first time that Mr. Graham and other evangelicals have cast doubts on Mr. Obama’s Christian beliefs. Last weekend, Rick Santorum, the Republican presidential candidate who calls himself a conservative Catholic, said that the president was guided by “some phony ideal, some phony theology.”
dogma wrote:As to ignorance of religion: My dad (a minister, for those that don't know) used to say that most people stop thinking about God when they stop going to Sunday school, so their understanding of faith never really progresses beyond that of your average 10 year old.
Sunday Christian, is the term, I believe.
And that's the thing, when most people are on or about that level of understanding of Christianity, then obscure differences in theology aren't enough to make one group not Christian.
I mean, I'd say most Christians don't care about the finer points of the trinity, and a significant number are only passingly aware of the concept.
Revelation is important, but one of the central tenets of Christianity is that the Bible, either on its own or via Jesus' divinity, is the supreme (or only) revelation of God.
Except that so much of Christianity is outside of the Bible. Find me the passage that says life begins at conception, and yet despite being outside of that book, and something that was heavily debated well into the 70s, it's now become a point of absolute conviction, and questioning it is about as sure a way as possible of getting ostracised.
I think you'll find that most conversations on religious classification are little more than fun intellectual exercises.
Sorry, I didn't mean that, probably didn't make myself too clear. I mean that the elements of the finer points of the faith are treated in a tone very different to what they feel as matters of substance, which would be faith in Jesus and the need to do good works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Regardless, tell me, does your nonexistent working definition of Christianity include Hindus? I mean, if I can't create a working definition of Christianity, then surely neither can you, which means Christianity is undefined, which means it means anything and everything, and is therefore without meaning.
That's a mighty leap. Many things have meaning without being clearly defined.
Monster Rain wrote:Revelation 22:18-19 mentions that the Bible shouldn't be added to or taken away from.
Dogma is correct. The scripture you quote refers to the book of Revelations and the term is "book", not Bible. The Bible is a series of books from Genisis to Revalations that were put together later on.
sebster wrote:Except that so much of Christianity is outside of the Bible. Find me the passage that says life begins at conception
And? THat just means it's a popular belief, not necessarily a Christian one.
CT GAMER wrote:The Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham, said on Tuesday that he was not sure if President Obama was a true Christian and that he could not definitively say that the president was not a Muslim.
Melissia wrote:And? THat just means it's a popular belief, not necessarily a Christian one.
You miss the point. It has become an idea that is mandatory among a large number of Christian groups, and questioning it will get you thrown out very quickly, with many people doubting if you are actually Christian. But it doesn't exist in the bible at all.
As such, given that this is a measure by which Christian groups define themselves, but one entirely outside of the bible, means that saying that purely adherence to the bible and nothing else is a very simplistic means of determining who is and is not a Christian.
Melissia wrote:I didn't miss it. I disagreed that it was a good point...
So you don't agree that when deciding what a Christian is, some consideration should be granted to what some Christians will consider necessary to being a member?
deathholydeath wrote:
That would be why I used the term "authoritative." This is an anonymous forum, not a debate between known scholars.
I'm not big on considering any source to be authoritative. By my nature I don't trust individuals unless I'm forced to, and this extends to scholarly work.
deathholydeath wrote:
It wasn't an objection from logic, not even an attempt. It was a pretty specific question-- can you cite evidence? But I will concede to rhetorical arguments on my side in this case. And yes, this is a board on the internetz for people who play with toy soldiers, but I still like to have a little evidence every now and then, especially given the volatile nature of the discussion.
I've already provided at least three arguments to not classify Mormons as Christians. Mormons are non-Trinitarian, and the Nicene Creed is considered by many to define Christianity. Mormons have 3 additional holy books. Mormons have assorted doctrinal differences with respect to mainstream Christianity that extend beyond the variance seen between, say, Catholics and Protestants or even Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxy.
deathholydeath wrote:
See, I do this for a living as well, and yes, I have my grievances with the Academy, but the "tower" gives some legitimacy to our research. It's a complicated problem.
I consider that legitimacy to be illusory at best, but that's another thread.
deathholydeath wrote:
Essentially, I'm arguing from an extremely relative standpoint (which is annoying, I know). And yes, my point is that no hard and fast definition of Christianity exists. The term is essentially meaningless and by extension so is the argument that Mormons are not Christians. Any definition can be countered by another. Much like the term "religion" there is no set of criteria for what constitutes Christianity; one can only talk about groups and what they practice. Mormons claim to be Christians and, in my opinion, no-one can gainsay them because no absolute definition exists. I respect that we need a linguistic system for identifying groups, but you know as well as I do that these systems fail at a certain level. In any case, we're both asking the other to prove concepts that cannot be proven on any real level. So perhaps we should just drop it. Mormonism and the validity of revelation isn't actually the subject of this thread anyway.
Fair enough, neither of us is going to make any headway here, as I suspect we've both had this argument often enough to be fairly entrenched in our positions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
And that's the thing, when most people are on or about that level of understanding of Christianity, then obscure differences in theology aren't enough to make one group not Christian.
I mean, I'd say most Christians don't care about the finer points of the trinity, and a significant number are only passingly aware of the concept.
I don't think the Trinity is that obscure, as its certainly something taught in Sunday school. But at this point its all just guess work in terms of proportionality, so I suspect we'll just have to disagree.
sebster wrote:
Except that so much of Christianity is outside of the Bible. Find me the passage that says life begins at conception, and yet despite being outside of that book, and something that was heavily debated well into the 70s, it's now become a point of absolute conviction, and questioning it is about as sure a way as possible of getting ostracised.
Sure, but that's not the result of revelation. Interpreting the Bible, or having a relationship with God is not revelation.
sebster wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean that, probably didn't make myself too clear. I mean that the elements of the finer points of the faith are treated in a tone very different to what they feel as matters of substance, which would be faith in Jesus and the need to do good works.
In my experience "faith in Jesus" is less important than good works, at least for most people, which is what I was trying to get at. The people that seriously think about religion and theology are usually either quite religious, or academics. Most everyone else just sort of goes along for the ride, which is why the theological differences between Mormons and Christians are important.
For example, if my dad said during Bible study that Mormons were not Christian, everyone in attendance would probably believe him. Of course, being in a particularly liberal denomination, no one there would likely care in the first place.
dogma wrote:I don't think the Trinity is that obscure, as its certainly something taught in Sunday school. But at this point its all just guess work in terms of proportionality, so I suspect we'll just have to disagree.
Not obscure as in unknown, I knew of the trinity before I was ten, and I've never been raised in any faith. Nah, obscure in the sense of it being marginal, largely irrelevant to actual practices.
Sure, but that's not the result of revelation. Interpreting the Bible, or having a relationship with God is not revelation.
But we're not talking only of revelation, but of everything that makes up being a Christian. The point about Catholics having a long tradition of concepts coming from outside the Bible is already made, and I was making the point that other groups, even those who consider themselves biblical literalists, find much of what they define themselves as outside of the bible. Ultimately, we have to consider that it isn't just about the bible.
In my experience "faith in Jesus" is less important than good works, at least for most people, which is what I was trying to get at. The people that seriously think about religion and theology are usually either quite religious, or academics. Most everyone else just sort of goes along for the ride, which is why the theological differences between Mormons and Christians are important.
That's the point, good works matters more than anything, and Mormonism instructs its members to good works as much as any other order.
There differences in theology at the high levels, but that's not what matters.
For example, if my dad said during Bible study that Mormons were not Christian, everyone in attendance would probably believe him. Of course, being in a particularly liberal denomination, no one there would likely care in the first place.
Which is a fair argument, but I do not believe it is simply the whole of the argument. That Greek Cypriotes do not consider Turkish Cypriotes as Cypriotes, but they still are. And had you asked a Western Christian if a member of the Eastern Orthodox was a Christian 400 years ago, you would likely have been told he was not.
The far more important question becomes 'what does the individual think of himself?', and so to change your example slightly, what if a Mormon preacher stood up in church and said 'we are not Christian'. None would agree with him.
sebster wrote:
But we're not talking only of revelation, but of everything that makes up being a Christian. The point about Catholics having a long tradition of concepts coming from outside the Bible is already made, and I was making the point that other groups, even those who consider themselves biblical literalists, find much of what they define themselves as outside of the bible. Ultimately, we have to consider that it isn't just about the bible.
Of course its not, despite what some claim, but claiming that there has been a new, more authentic, revelation is a really big deal. I mean, I really can't state this enough, revelation is not something taking lightly in Christian theology. Catholic doctrine, for example, while extra-biblical, is not revelation. At least not to my knowledge, I'm more familiar with Protestantism.
sebster wrote:
That's the point, good works matters more than anything, and Mormonism instructs its members to good works as much as any other order.
There differences in theology at the high levels, but that's not what matters.
Right, but "good works" is a broad concept, with many varying interpretations across multiple religions. Good works matters in the sense of random Christian X determining if random person Y is a good person, not in the sense of determining if they're Christian. Otherwise we end up in a situation where all altruistic people are Christian, which simply doesn't make sense.
sebster wrote:
The far more important question becomes 'what does the individual think of himself?', and so to change your example slightly, what if a Mormon preacher stood up in church and said 'we are not Christian'. None would agree with him.
Actually, they might. Religious officials, across all faiths, have a startling amount of influence on the beliefs of their congregations. That said, Mormonism is fairly rigid, more so than Catholicism, so that type of proclamation is unlikely.
Anyway, what individuals think of themselves is important, but not more important than the collective appraisal of an idea. Its sort of like the argument surrounding rights. You can believe you have a particular right, but if the majority of other people don't agree, then you don't have that right.
dogma wrote:Of course its not, despite what some claim, but claiming that there has been a new, more authentic, revelation is a really big deal. I mean, I really can't state this enough, revelation is not something taking lightly in Christian theology. Catholic doctrine, for example, while extra-biblical, is not revelation. At least not to my knowledge, I'm more familiar with Protestantism.
So where does that leave the Jehovah's Witnesses?
Right, but "good works" is a broad concept, with many varying interpretations across multiple religions. Good works matters in the sense of random Christian X determining if random person Y is a good person, not in the sense of determining if they're Christian. Otherwise we end up in a situation where all altruistic people are Christian, which simply doesn't make sense.
Sure, belief in Jesus is the other part. Which, of course, the Mormons have.
Anyway, what individuals think of themselves is important, but not more important than the collective appraisal of an idea. Its sort of like the argument surrounding rights. You can believe you have a particular right, but if the majority of other people don't agree, then you don't have that right.
This leaves us with a position where people consider themselves something, while others consider them not a part of that thing. And still without any kind of satisfactory definition to help us clarify the situation. At which point we're left with shrugging and being relieved that externally imposed definitions never really mean anything anyway.
sebster wrote:Except that so much of Christianity is outside of the Bible. Find me the passage that says life begins at conception
And? THat just means it's a popular belief, not necessarily a Christian one.
CT GAMER wrote:The Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham, said on Tuesday that he was not sure if President Obama was a true Christian and that he could not definitively say that the president was not a Muslim.
That's because he's an idiot.
He's not an idiot, any more than you are. Again, the MSM takes it out of context. he was questioned on it and said Obama went to church for twenty years so duh. The MSM has taken to asking any rightwing priest, minister, etc. if Obama is a Christian, and then shouts out "X says he's not a Christian!" "X is uncertain he's a Christian!" or "X brings up Obama's faith!"
sebster wrote:So you don't agree that when deciding what a Christian is, some consideration should be granted to what some Christians will consider necessary to being a member?
I don't consider accepting the modern Christian culture as a necessity for being a Christian. Religion and spirituality are things that come from within, not from without. Mind you, I say this as someone who claims no religion or denomination, so I'm probably biased.
sebster wrote:So you don't agree that when deciding what a Christian is, some consideration should be granted to what some Christians will consider necessary to being a member?
I don't consider accepting the modern Christian culture as a necessity for being a Christian. Religion and spirituality are things that come from within, not from without. Mind you, I say this as someone who claims no religion or denomination, so I'm probably biased.
So in other words, as a nonChristian, your opinion on what being a Christian requires, doesn't mean gak.
Frazzled wrote:Woman/female are defined by biology.
This is not a universally held opinion.
Indeed, quite a few psychologists have written about the psychological construct of gender and how it is not always in line with biology. But since you're not a woman your opinion, by your own definition, isn't worth gak on the topic of what makes a woman.
Frazzled wrote:Woman/female are defined by biology.
This is not a universally held opinion.
Indeed, quite a few psychologists have written about the psychological construct of gender and how it is not always in line with biology. But since you're not a woman your opinion, by your own definition, isn't worth gak on the topic of what makes a woman.
Biologists and medical doctors would disagree with you.
Having said that, I didn't offer an opinion on it. You did.
Frazzled wrote:Having said that, I didn't offer an opinion on it.
Yes you did.
Nope just that the comparison is, shall we say, dumber than a box of rocks.
I think you're confusing the comparison with your statement that noone can ever understand a religion without being a part of it.
Its a clear statement. You stated your opinion of what the requirements for a Christian are, then rejected certain contemporary portions, depsite not being a Christian. Thats tatamount to myself tating what the requirements of being a Muslim are without actually being one. Thats a deep theological issue which, frankly you know nothing about, unless you suddenly produce some sort of proof that you have studied Christian theology at an accredited university, or at least, you know, having been baptized or some gak. COnsidering your hostility to large portions of Christians I'd proffer, again your knowledge of the faith is minimal at best.
Frazzled wrote:Er...in the case of religion, it does.
So if enough people believed it strongly enough, you'd suddenly become a baby-sacrificing satanist?
If Satanists believe that baby sacrificing is a requirement of their faith than, here's the cool duh moment, than to be a Satanist you have to believe in baby sacrificing. To follow our discussion, because I am not a Satanist (capital S) I have no right or providence to define the requiements of the Church of Satan differently than it does.
sebster wrote:So you don't agree that when deciding what a Christian is, some consideration should be granted to what some Christians will consider necessary to being a member?
I don't consider accepting the modern Christian culture as a necessity for being a Christian. Religion and spirituality are things that come from within, not from without. Mind you, I say this as someone who claims no religion or denomination, so I'm probably biased.
So in other words, as a nonChristian, your opinion on what being a Christian requires, doesn't mean gak.
So can we apply this reasoning to all the non-homosexual/non-female conservatives that seem to want to offer their opinions on issues vital to those two groups? How about rich, white politicians speaking on issues of poverty, race and sociology-political issues?
Or non- Muslims speaking Islam?
So basically you have just admitted you yourself have no right to speak on half the stuff you post about here on dakkadakka, and that the majority of right wing candidates don't either.
I appreciate this honest appraisal of your knowledge...
sebster wrote:So you don't agree that when deciding what a Christian is, some consideration should be granted to what some Christians will consider necessary to being a member?
I don't consider accepting the modern Christian culture as a necessity for being a Christian. Religion and spirituality are things that come from within, not from without. Mind you, I say this as someone who claims no religion or denomination, so I'm probably biased.
So in other words, as a nonChristian, your opinion on what being a Christian requires, doesn't mean gak.
So can we apply this reasoning to all the non-homosexual/non-female conservatives that seem to want to offer their opinions on issues vital to those two groups? How about rich, white politicians speaking on issues of poverty, race and sociology-political issues?
Or non- Muslims speaking Islam?
So basically you have just admitted you yourself have no right to speak on half the stuff you post about here on dakkadakka, and that the majority of right wing candidates don't either.
I appreciate this honest appraisal of your knowledge...
Nope. I'm saying on matters of deep and subtle theological context, unless you have a background of knowedge, its either hubris or idiocy to think you can comment.
Thats like discussing the merits of the Rolls Royce turbofan A-1a engine without like, knowing a damn thing about Rolls Royce, or aeronautics, or jet engine technology.
Frazzled wrote:Woman/female are defined by biology.
This is not a universally held opinion.
Indeed, quite a few psychologists have written about the psychological construct of gender and how it is not always in line with biology. But since you're not a woman your opinion, by your own definition, isn't worth gak on the topic of what makes a woman.
Biologists and medical doctors would disagree with you.
Sex and gender are different things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Nope. I'm saying on matters of deep and subtle theological context, unless you have a background of knowedge, its either hubris or idiocy to think you can comment.
Thats like discussing the merits of the Rolls Royce turbofan A-1a engine without like, knowing a damn thing about Rolls Royce, or aeronautics, or jet engine technology.
Frazzled wrote:Woman/female are defined by biology.
This is not a universally held opinion.
Indeed, quite a few psychologists have written about the psychological construct of gender and how it is not always in line with biology. But since you're not a woman your opinion, by your own definition, isn't worth gak on the topic of what makes a woman.
Biologists and medical doctors would disagree with you.
Sex and gender are different things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Nope. I'm saying on matters of deep and subtle theological context, unless you have a background of knowedge, its either hubris or idiocy to think you can comment.
Thats like discussing the merits of the Rolls Royce turbofan A-1a engine without like, knowing a damn thing about Rolls Royce, or aeronautics, or jet engine technology.
We agree.
This cannot be allowed.
I was noting sex D. Gender is a malleable concept, but again a complete distraction from the discussion of what makes a good Christian (like that question itself could be answered).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:You don't have to be Christian yourself, Frazzled, to have a background of knowledge on the religion. Just saying.
Agreed G.
A further note here. "What is it to be Christian," is one of those questions that goes to the heart of the faith. Its one of THE deep questions. Its akin to asking "what is to be human?" A reflective Christian would have to ask themself that, often, and often having a changing answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:And you also don't have to be a Christian to have been on in the past.
Well with the myriad of bigoted statements you've made about Christians, I'd proffer it didn't take sufficiently for you to have an opinion.
Frazzled wrote:Well with the myriad of bigoted statements you've made about Christians, I'd proffer it didn't take sufficiently for you to have an opinion.
Ah yes, so not only can non-Christians not say anything about Christianity, but also ex-Christians can't as well because "it didn't take".
This argument of yours is overwhelmingly stupid and nonsensical, and I'm gonna go over there and do something more productive like trim my toenails.
Frazzled wrote:Well with the myriad of bigoted statements you've made about Christians, I'd proffer it didn't take sufficiently for you to have an opinion.
Ah yes, so not only can non-Christians not say anything about Christianity, but also ex-Christians can't as well because "it didn't take".
This argument of yours is overwhelmingly stupid and nonsensical, and I'm gonna go over there and do something more productive like trim my toenails.
Then quit while you're behind. Frankly your constant attacks on people of faith that you deem unworthy makes any statements you make in regards to what it takes to be a Christian lack merit or support.
EDIT: there are things we agree on Melissia, but your constant attacks in this area are just a little much.
I concur that Melissia is (IMO) unnecessarily hostile toward the religion and its adherents in general, but I can understand how exposure to particularly bad and offensive members of a group can sour one on the whole group.
I do think a non-Christian can hold meaningful opinions about Christianity and what makes a Christian. If a Christian writer is capable of explaining it or reflecting on it, can I not comprehend the words and their meaning, even if I do not share his faith?
Mannahnin wrote:I concur that Melissia is (IMO) unnecessarily hostile toward the religion and its adherents in general, but I can understand how exposure to particularly bad and offensive members of a group can sour one on the whole group.
I do think a non-Christian can hold meaningful opinions about Christianity and what makes a Christian. If a Christian writer is capable of explaining it or reflecting on it, can I not comprehend the words and their meaning, even if I do not share his faith?
You can if you have some expertise in the matter. Melissia doesn't. Further, this is a fundamental question for Christians, or persons of any faith, about their faith. The opinion of Joe Blow is not especially relevant. Even I don't claim to have sufficient expertise to discuss this fundamental question, outside of my personal state or frame of reference.
sebster wrote:So you don't agree that when deciding what a Christian is, some consideration should be granted to what some Christians will consider necessary to being a member?
I don't consider accepting the modern Christian culture as a necessity for being a Christian. Religion and spirituality are things that come from within, not from without. Mind you, I say this as someone who claims no religion or denomination, so I'm probably biased.
Oh okay, so the issue is that you didn't get the conversation.
dogma was arguing that Christians get to define who is and who isn't a christian. I pointed out that if we accept that line of reasoning, then we also have to accept that it doesn't just apply to Mormons, but to people that believe entirely modern but strongly held political views, like the idea that life begins at conception.
I don't agree with that, but agree with your general idea that Christianity should be, within reason, self-determined. I was just pointing out that if we accept dogma's views that Christians can define their own, then we need to recognise that definition is going to be based on a lot more things that theological debates over the trinity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:In the middle, Three Worlds isn't a holy book.
Because it gets pretty hard, pretty quickly to determine 'Christian' and 'Not Christian', therefore the invention of the middle, as a place to put groups with Christian theology and significant elements of other stuff thrown in.
Whether or not I'm describing JW or Mormonism there I'll leave up to you.
Frazzled wrote:You can if you have some expertise in the matter. Melissia doesn't.
I'm not a theologian, but according to you theologians wouldn't have any expertise either unless they belong tot he religion in specfiic.
Which is rather stupid, but whatever. By definition, a "Christian" is a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. While some groups try to impose other restrictions on this in order to make it a more exclusive group, this doesn't really work out very well. Not all Christians believe in the Trinity, for example, so using trinitarianism as a defining quality of Christianity isn't an accurate description. Not all Christians believe in the Pope as the holiest person on Earth and the ultimate mortal authority on Christianity, so that belief in the primacy of the pope is hardly a good descriptor either.
Mannahnin wrote:I concur that Melissia is (IMO) unnecessarily hostile toward the religion and its adherents in general, but I can understand how exposure to particularly bad and offensive members of a group can sour one on the whole group.
I'm not hostile to Christianity, I'm hostile to people trying to force it upon me through law. I'm also hostile to Islamic and Jewish people who try to do the same thing to me with their religious dogma.
dogma wrote:In the middle, Three Worlds isn't a holy book.
Because it gets pretty hard, pretty quickly to determine 'Christian' and 'Not Christian', therefore the invention of the middle, as a place to put groups with Christian theology and significant elements of other stuff thrown in.
Whether or not I'm describing JW or Mormonism there I'll leave up to you.
When I say "in the middle" I'm basically saying its up for debate. In my opinion, JWs are Chrisitian, but Mormons are not, but I also think that the debate on whether or not Mormons are Christian has essentially been settled in the theological community.
And sure, its hard to determine, that's why we have arguments about it.
Frazzled wrote:You can if you have some expertise in the matter. Melissia doesn't.
I'm not a theologian, but according to you theologians wouldn't have any expertise either unless they belong tot he religion in specfiic.
Which is rather stupid, but whatever. By definition, a "Christian" is a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. While some groups try to impose other restrictions on this in order to make it a more exclusive group, this doesn't really work out very well. Not all Christians believe in the Trinity, for example, so using trinitarianism as a defining quality of Christianity isn't an accurate description. Not all Christians believe in the Pope as the holiest person on Earth and the ultimate mortal authority on Christianity, so that belief in the primacy of the pope is hardly a good descriptor either.
Mannahnin wrote:I concur that Melissia is (IMO) unnecessarily hostile toward the religion and its adherents in general, but I can understand how exposure to particularly bad and offensive members of a group can sour one on the whole group.
I'm not hostile to Christianity, I'm hostile to people trying to force it upon me through law. I'm also hostile to Islamic and Jewish people who try to do the same thing to me with their religious dogma.
Yet about every fourth post you make in some way attacks Christians. Seriously you have a lot of anger there. Thats not good. It just makes you old and bitter. I know. After all Frazzled isn't a person, its a lifestyle.
Frazzled wrote:Yet about every fourth post you make in some way attacks Christians.
But not christianity.
Just because the average random douchebag trying to force their religious views on me happens to be Christian (because of where I live, it's rare that I get the same thing from, say, a Hindu practitioner) doesn't mean that I believe for an instant that all Christians aer like that. The reason you see me "attacking Christians" all the time is because these people that I am attacking, whom just so happen to be Christians, are trying to force their religious laws down my throat. I know you confuse this with "Christian-bashing", but let the confusion end already ffs.
Ahtman wrote:To the outside it seems Christians go to church on Sunday and then spend Monday to Saturday arguing over which ones are real Christians.
Horse gak. Mondays are for coffee.
Whats interesting is I've never had an argument about who is or isn't a Christian. The people I've met who seemed closest to God would be he least likely to have this argument. They didn't ahve the energy to waste on such trivial matters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Yet about every fourth post you make in some way attacks Christians.
But not christianity.
Just because the average random douchebag trying to force their religious views on me happens to be Christian (because of where I live, it's rare that I get the same thing from, say, a Hindu practitioner) doesn't mean that I believe for an instant that all Christians aer like that. The reason you see me "attacking Christians" all the time is because these people that I am attacking, whom just so happen to be Christians, are trying to force their religious laws down my throat. I know you confuse this with "Christian-bashing", but let the confusion end already ffs.
I've found its people in general who are trying to force laws down your throat. I've not noticed a difference between Christian and non Christian, Republican or Democrat, woman or man. Always someone trying to tell Frazzled what to do. No thanks I say. I already have a Wife.
Ahtman wrote:To the outside it seems Christians go to church on Sunday and then spend Monday to Saturday arguing over which ones are real Christians.
Horse gak. Mondays are for coffee.
Whats interesting is I've never had an argument about who is or isn't a Christian. The people I've met who seemed closest to God would be he least likely to have this argument. They didn't ahve the energy to waste on such trivial matters.
Forgot about Mondays, my bad. I was talking about the internet and television discussions, and should have been more clear on that; can't go a week, it seems, without a thread/new story going into it in some way or another. In real life it rarely comes up that often for most people, including myself.
