Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm not going to bother digging up the quotes, but if you read through the thread you'll see my point.

And I'm not being hyper defensive. I just know a red herring when I see one and was simply pointing it out.

I'm agnostic, I don't care about people's opinion of Christianity in the slightest. I just like people to have their facts straight. I didn't say anyone was being rude, I said that they were busting balls. There's a big difference between those two statements and I stand by the one that I made.

I've read the thread and I didn't get that slant off it at all, to be honest with you.

Did you read page 3? As soon as Westboro Baptist is held up as why someone's opinion of Christianity is the way that it is all sense has left the conversation.

Also, on Page 4, GG directly responds to the idea that the KKK is a Christian Sect.

Westboro Baptist was held up as another christian sect.

And I read GG's response, I just don't agree with it.

Monster Rain wrote:GG-

They're busting your balls, man.

This thread has gone from saying that Pat Robertson was out of line to you having to explain to these people why the KKK doesn't represent mainstream Christianity.

Either the people making these claims know that they're full of or they're too deluded to be convinced otherwise.

Don't waste your time.

Oh the glorious irony.

Kanluwen wrote:Same way we know you're not funny?

You were there and heard them turn Lucyfer down?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:GG-

They're busting your balls, man.

This thread has gone from saying that Pat Robertson was out of line to you having to explain to these people why the KKK doesn't represent mainstream Christianity.

Either the people making these claims know that they're full of or they're too deluded to be convinced otherwise.

Don't waste your time.

Oh the glorious irony.

What's ironic about it, exactly?

It would appear that The Bible needs an FAQ, pronto! Where's Gwar! when you need him?

Albatross wrote:It would appear that The Bible needs an FAQ, pronto! Where's Gwar! when you need him?

Bible FAQ gets my vote for thread winner. If I were one to say "LOL" I would do so.

It gets FAQs all the time. It just is that there is no centralized body to determine which one should be used.

Maybe GW's rules team should take a crack at it.

Monster Rain wrote:Maybe GW's rules team should take a crack at it.

NO NO and NO,remember,we are trying to lessen the confusion...not increase it by 100%

So, does the Qu'ran overrule the Bible as it was released later - like a Codex? Or is it more of an expansion, like Planetstrike?

Albatross wrote:So, does the Qu'ran overrule the Bible as it was released later - like a Codex? Or is it more of an expansion, like Planetstrike?

Hmmm? Perhaps we should call in Gwar.

He's Jewish - No, can't see THAT ending badly!

Albatross wrote:He's Jewish - No, can't see THAT ending badly!

You make an excelent point my friend...what about Andy Chambers

I dunno, but asking a Jewish guy to create a FAQ on the Bible and The Qu'ran seems like it might lead to all sorts of problems!

generalgrog wrote:
So basically according to a few people on DAKKA

Adolf Hitler, unrepentent child molesting priests, white supremacists, Phony televangelists, Cult leaders like David Koresh, Jim Jones of Jones town fame and a slew of other people that have claimed themsleves to be Christian are indeed Christian just because they professed it, even though there lives didn't project Christianity, then you really are blind.

You know, there is an ongoing debate about this sort of thing: orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy. The question is unanswerable via logic, so at best your playing from a position of whim and emotion. Its a poor argument.

Regardless though, since none of you recognize accepted Nicene orthodoxy as the standard for what defines the realms of Christendom, you denied him one of the most valid arguments he could possibly have. Regardless of your feelings, it is the standard and measure of what defines our faith. But we have already had this discussion....

JEB_Stuart wrote:Regardless of your feelings, it is the standard and measure of what defines our faith. But we have already had this discussion....

Actually, it isn't regardless of feelings at all. The concept of denial in an argument of historicity is based upon feeling with respect to evidence.

dogma wrote:Actually, it isn't regardless of feelings at all. The concept of denial in an argument of historicity is based upon feeling with respect to evidence.

Ok, so you ignore the history of the Church. The denial of Nicene orthodoxy as the standard, doesn't eliminate it as the standard. That is why they had the Ecumenical Councils in the first place. The leaders of the Church deemed it necessary to define the Doctrines and beliefs of Christianity. Ergo, those that fall outside of those bounds are not members of Christendom, but merely imitators. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking on your part IMHO. I say we stop this discussion, before we go on again for another 10 pages. You refuse to acknowledge orthodoxy as the standard, as you have stated previously, and in contrast, I disregard attempts to redefine Christendom from a secular point of view. This is not an argument you or I can win because this delves into the realm of the metaphysical. As a last note though I will say this: I do not presume that my exact interpretation of the Bible, and by extension the doctrines of Christianity, is the most complete Truth in existence. I fully regard it as only being completely understood by God and God alone. Many of us may be wrong on many points, but I take my beliefs on Faith. Faith supported by Scripture, logic and tradition. And since this deals with matters of specific faith and ideas, there will be no fruitful discussions between Believers and non-believers, so I suggest we lock this thread and move on.

Before we lock can I just say....no...wait......

I like the idea of a FAQ for religeon.

I approve of this thread's message and/or service!

JEB_Stuart wrote:The denial of Nicene orthodoxy as the standard, doesn't eliminate it as the standard.

Yes it does. Standards are emotional barriers, if I lack the emotions, I lack the barriers.

No one should care what Christians think about their own categories.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
To believe otherwise is wishful thinking on your part IMHO.

Opinions are both fun, and meaningless.

dogma wrote:

No one should care what Christians think about their own categories.

To an extent I agree with dogma on this one. I certainly think that a 'sect' such as this to be christian is very much possible. They may not be a mainstream christian, but they're are still a christian of sorts.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
To believe otherwise is wishful thinking on your part IMHO.

Opinions are both fun, and meaningless.

Now that's a bit mean.

We banter. Its all in fun, hopefully.

dogma wrote:They see me trollin', they hatin'...

Sorry, spotted a bit of a typo there.

Well, that sates my interest. None of the Christians here professed sympathies with the views of the televangelist.

I think perhaps the US would be better served if more Christians stood up as people of faith and spoke out against this individual, or perhaps more importantly complained to the broadcasters about him and his kind.

I often snarl about the Islamic people's unwillingness to publicly decry the 'mad mullahs' and hate-inciting 'men of Allah', I can see no reason to not ask the same of Christians for creatures like this one.

Whatever else we agree or do not on these boards, one thing is clear, the people of Haiti need help and kindness, not the ignorant hate of one man masquerading as a follower of Christ.

Thread lock at OP request.

I agree, obviously, that it has come to the end of its natural life.