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.
2012/02/20 14:55:29
Subject: Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
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.
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/21 03:07:51
2012/02/22 12:10:19
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
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!"
2012/02/22 14:25:37
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
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.
2012/02/22 15:06:20
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
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.
2012/02/22 15:17:13
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/22 15:33:13
2012/02/22 15:36:49
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
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:
2012/02/22 16:10:17
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
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.
2012/02/22 16:46:21
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/02/22 16:50:45
2012/02/22 22:39:36
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/22 22:44:04
2012/02/23 02:54:51
Subject: Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/23 02:56:06
2012/02/23 03:35:33
Subject: Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
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.
2012/02/23 03:40:47
Subject: Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/23 03:43:21
