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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

Melissia wrote:

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:So in other words, as a nonChristian, your opinion on what being a Christian requires, doesn't mean gak.

So what, would you also say that, as someone who hasn't ever been a woman, your definition of "woman" or "female" is irrelevant?

So as far as you know, your wife isn't actually a woman, because you can't define women as you're not one. Right?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So in other words, as a nonChristian, your opinion on what being a Christian requires, doesn't mean gak.

So what, would you also say that, as someone who hasn't ever been a woman, your definition of "woman" or "female" is irrelevant?

So as far as you know, your wife isn't actually a woman, because you can't define women as you're not one. Right?

Woman/female are defined by biology. Attempts to equate that with complex theological arguments ar, at best nonsensical.

As an aside, leave my family out of it or I will report you.

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

Of course, since your opinions are irrelevant because you are not a female, I don't have any reason to care anyway =D

Melissia wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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:You stated your opinion of what the requirements for a Christian are, then rejected certain contemporary portions

I rejected that they defined what make a Christian..

A large number of people believing something is true does not make it so.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You stated your opinion of what the requirements for a Christian are, then rejected certain contemporary portions

I rejected that they defined what make a Christian..

A large number of people believing something is true does not make it so.

Er...in the case of religion, it does. THATS KIND OF THE POINT.

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?

Melissia wrote:

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.

I think this is a helpful addition:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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...

Frazzled wrote:because I am not a Satanist

That's irrelevant, according to your argument, as long as enough people disagree with you.

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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:

Melissia wrote:

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.

You don't have to be Christian yourself, Frazzled, to have a background of knowledge on the religion. Just saying.

And you also don't have to be a Christian to have been on in the past.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.