Lions! Please Familiarize Yourself With 2Philovoid.

[2PhiloVoid]

So what is it Philo?

 

Are you a True Christian™, have you invented your own religion by believing what you want to believe, are you deconverting, are you filling a void in your life because you are bored?   Tell us about your Jesus. 

 

Oh, and a word from those of us that know the Bible...don't be so fucking vague with the allegories and the parables. If you know something we don't know, tell us.  If not, screw off.

 

A "Christian" doesn't come to a place like this to exchange recipes.

 

Duderonomy,

 

A True Christian™? It's funny that for the last two thousand years, and after Christ and His Apostles, everyone seems to be "in the know" as to just what this creature™ is, but those who supposedly know aren't a chorus of voices emanating from the same church, but rather a cacophony of diverse diviners who cast their long shadows over the Kingdom. So, who gets to decide what a True Christian™ is? The Fundies?

 

Peace

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Define "the Kingdom". Thanks.

[sdelsolray]

Define "the Kingdom". Thanks.

That's The Kingdom™.

[2PhiloVoid]

 

Define "the Kingdom". Thanks.

That's The Kingdom™.

 

 

Guys and Ladies,

 

The Kingdom™ is the flip side of the coin. If we know what a True Christian™ is, then we can know what constitutes The Kingdom™. So asking me what the latter term is when I'm already inquiring about the nature of the former term seems to be an effort of futility, does it not?

 

I'm asking you guys; maybe you know the Bible better than I do.  

 

Peace,

2PhiloVoid

[duderonomy]

Philo,

 

I would suppose that your Biblegod would know and gets to decide what a True Christian is.

If you believe in it, it shouldn't too difficult for you to find out what one is, and whether you are one or not.

 

We are asking you to define your ideas.  Tell us about your faith.

 

Are you able to do so? Then please do! 

 

Thanks

[midniterider]

Philo,

 

I would suppose that your Biblegod would know and gets to decide what a True Christian is.

If you believe in it, it shouldn't too difficult for you to find out what one is, and whether you are one or not.

 

We are asking you to define your ideas.  Tell us about your faith.

 

Are you able to do so? Then please do! 

 

Thanks

 

 

The Kingdom? True Christian? Jesus Christ?  Never heard of these things.... :-)

 

....

 

It's like Michigan Frog  ... in church, it's "Hello my Jesus, Hello my Savior , Hello my Ragtime Goddddddddddddddd!!!!!!!!!"

 

When you put them in front of ex-christians you get, "ribit."

 

....

 

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Define "the Kingdom". Thanks.

That's The Kingdom™.

 

 

Guys and Ladies,

 

The Kingdom™ is the flip side of the coin. If we know what a True Christian™ is, then we can know what constitutes The Kingdom™. So asking me what the latter term is when I'm already inquiring about the nature of the former term seems to be an effort of futility, does it not?

 

I'm asking you guys; maybe you know the Bible better than I do. 

 

Peace,

2PhiloVoid

 

So, please identify what a True Christian™ is.  I know I am not one.  I strongly suspect you believe you are, for three reasons.  First, you seem to imply you know what The Kingdom™ is (see your post below), which, according to your above statement would require prior knowledge of what a True Christian™ is.  Second, the post below contains your judgment of others (i.e., not you) as to whether they are True Christians™.  Only a True Christian™, or one who knows what a True Christian™ is, could make such a judgment.  Third, nearly all who profess to be Christians claim to be True Christians™ - followers of the true faith.  It is more likely than not that you are no different.

 

As you point out, those who claim to be True Christians™, taken together, become a "cacophony of diverse diviners casting...shadows..." (your words).  You must feel great that you are a Real True Christian™ and not a Fake True Christian™.

 

Enough of that.  Now please define this Kingdom™.  Seem like a kingdom would need a king (or is that King?).  Do folks get to vote on this King?  Are there other choices?  Why return to an obsolete and problematic form of fiefdom government?  Is this Kingdom™ simply part of a certain religious dogmatic fantasy?  What will you be in this Kingdom™?  Will you be a member of the King's Court?  A serf?  

 

 

So what is it Philo?

 

Are you a True Christian™, have you invented your own religion by believing what you want to believe, are you deconverting, are you filling a void in your life because you are bored?   Tell us about your Jesus. 

 

Oh, and a word from those of us that know the Bible...don't be so fucking vague with the allegories and the parables. If you know something we don't know, tell us.  If not, screw off.

 

A "Christian" doesn't come to a place like this to exchange recipes.

 

Duderonomy,

 

A True Christian™? It's funny that for the last two thousand years, and after Christ and His Apostles, everyone seems to be "in the know" as to just what this creature™ is, but those who supposedly know aren't a chorus of voices emanating from the same church, but rather a cacophony of diverse diviners who cast their long shadows over the Kingdom. So, who gets to decide what a True Christian™ is? The Fundies?

 

Peace

 

 

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Philo,

 

I would suppose that your Biblegod would know and gets to decide what a True Christian is.

If you believe in it, it shouldn't too difficult for you to find out what one is, and whether you are one or not.

 

We are asking you to define your ideas.  Tell us about your faith.

 

Are you able to do so? Then please do! 

 

Thanks

 

 

Hello Duderonomy (and Crew),

 

What you’ve supposed is correct--only Biblegod gets to make the final decision(s) on who qualifies for eternal bliss. As much as I’d like to pat myself on the back and usher myself into the heavenly realms, I’m sure that regardless of whether there is or is not a God, I’ll not get the self-patting privilege either way. But, Good work on anticipating the implications of my previous statements, Duderonomy.

 

I see you’ve made a request for me to reveal my True Christian™ ‘beliefs’ in a clear and distinct fashion.  It’s definitely a reasonable appeal (common sense, really) since laying out one’s beliefs in a well-defined and understandable manner enables others to more aptly engage the ideas presented. Far be it from me to do less and allow myself to be perceived as somehow disingenuous…or shallow. I hope you know that I really am trying to avoid getting all the Lions into an uproar; keeping our correspondence here on an amiable trajectory is one of my aims.

 

However, while I don’t intend to cause annoyances to any of you through recourse to obfuscation, I hope you might bear with me just a little if you don’t see me “rush” to succinctly define the concept of a True Christian™, and I have a few reasons as to why:

 

First, while I could present one of a handful of different ways to articulate a “definition” for a True Christian™, any way I do it, in my estimation, would not in and of itself actually express a fully coherent or integrated explanation as to what  a True Christian™ is. The best that such a “layout” can do is to demonstrate the presence of some general signposts about the meaning of a True Christian™. Of course, we can try to “proof-text” a few verses or passages, but I think you all know as well as I do that the Bible does not incorporate a systematized, streamlined, fully consistent, and comprehensively detailed theology. That kind of activity was apparently, for better or for worse, relegated to a diverse crowd of Christian thinkers living in eras later than that of Jesus.

 

As far as I see it from a rationally human standpoint, all that a person living in the 21st century can do is appropriate Socrates’ dictum regarding the “Evaluated Life” and do her best to consider what a True Christian™ Would Be or Could Be, while taking the various permutations of historical advancement into consideration in the evaluation process. For some of us, this kind of evaluation will lead to the relinquishing of Christian belief, while for others it will become a recognition that being a True Christian doesn’t rest solely on achieving cognitive assent to what we are ‘told’ is the truth about Christ. It will be the active following of Jesus as He can be understood through almost 2,000 years of Christian deliberation, spiritual yearning, and attempts at codification.

 

Ok. So you think that first point was still vague. Well, here is some more to think about…

 

Secondly, I don’t place a premium on "Bullshitting." Rather, I operate within the respectable, yet philosophical, mode of “Brainstorming,” as philosopher Kerry Walters (1988) would say.  What this means in direct terms is this: I do care about the integrity and outcomes of my inquiries. If I were a bullshitter, I would not. In fact, if I were a bullshitter, I would just want to use the power of my brain (and voice) to distract and disturb others who do care about important issues. As a “Brainstormer,” I am not only willing to investigate the world through dialogue with others (without hedging by use of unnecessary ultimatums), but I am also willing to bear the pain of possible conclusions that might demonstrate an error in my own thinking. Furthermore, as Kerry Walters explains, although a Brainstormer is often less concerned about facing the prospect that some issues may in fact be shown to be inconclusive, the Brainstormer more importantly:

 

…takes philosophical speculation seriously because she accepts a much richer definition of “instrumentality” or “practical value” than the bullshitter. She acknowledges that knowledge is capable of being its own end, but also realizes that even the most abstract speculation results in effects which, directly or indirectly, have a practical bearing upon her daily existence…(p. 33)

 

I hope that anyone reading this realizes that I’m not trying to be offensive by contrasting bullshitting with brainstorming, but rather I am using Walters’ argument to demonstrate my own beginning principle by which I engage my Christian belief, and that is by making a distinction between bullshitting about Christian belief (or any belief, like say, atheism) and brainstorming about these important topics. In a perfect world, both Christians and non-Christians would be Brainstormers. 

 

Thirdly, as I’m sure you understand, Duderonomy (cool name, by the way), I have a very limited time to attempt any kind of comprehensive dialogue, and I can’t really do so with a dozen interested inquirers (or interrogators) all at the same time, let alone answer every question posed to me by each of them, no matter how much I wish I could.

 

While I’d like to further converse with you about all of this, I will probably have to place you on a ‘waiting list’ for dialogue at a later time since I’m presently responding to three or four other Ex-C members already (such as StJeff, Ficino,WarriorPoet, and a couple of others). However, since you were forthcoming enough to ask me to “put up or shut up,” and in the spirit of amiability, I’ll at least leave you with a short list that will indicate “some” aspects of my general position on Christianity, for what it’s actually worth to anyone:

 

(1) Theistic Evolutionist, (2) Historically Submerged Trinitarian Neo-evangelical, (3) Quasi-Ecumenicalist, (4) Annihilationist, (5) Quasi-Cessationist, (6) Non-Inerrantist, (7) Non-Rapture/Partially Preteristic Premillenialist (…whatever the heck that is!    )

 

[…and to all who may be reading this, you may now roll your eyes in sheer disbelief and disgust….but don’t say I didn’t warn you. ]

 

Thank you for prompting me to respond, Duderonomy. I look forward to speaking with you when I have more time. Feel free to post a few questions if you wish, but it will be some time before I can get to them, (unless you want a truncated answer, which is something I think you guys were wanting me to avoid).  

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

References

Walters, K. (1996). On bullshitting and brainstorming. In D.N. Kolak and R. Martin (Eds.), The Experience of Philosophy, (3^rd ed., pp. 31-34). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

[♦ ficino ♦]

The outlines of the Catholic answer to this is not all that complicated, although it can get tricky in individual cases.  Anyone who confesses belief in what the Church teaches and is baptised (allowances made for converts who die before they're baptised, etc.) is a Christian.  The occasion where someone is born again is in the sacrament of baptism. (I think classical Lutherans and Anglicans believe this, too.) But the set of Christians is not identical to the set of God's elect.  Who is predestined to heaven is known only to God. It cannot be known by any individual except by special, private revelation.

 

Someone who dies in a state of grace is assured of heaven. Again, that person might not be a Christian - the Church allows for pious non-Christians who are saved by faith counted as saving faith. It's a heresy to say that you have to be a baptized Catholic to be saved.

 

Most of those who die in a state of grace still are not perfected in love.  So they go to Purgatory, where their attachment to self and other creatures is gradually burned out of them, to be replaced by love of God.  Some are so perfected in love in this life that they go directly to heaven.  But once you get your foot in the door of Purgatory - you're in!  It's been said that the joy of the souls suffering purification in Purgatory is second only to the joy of the souls in heaven.

 

Evangelical Protestants confuse terms.  They equate "Christian" with "saved" or with "the elect."  The Catholic view is that there can be evil Christians- think of medieval frescoes with popes and nuns sliding into hell - and good non-Christians (maybe Plato and Socrates, some of them used to think, and so on).  The good non-Christians meme has not been emphasized much, though, for obvious reasons, and in any case, it's dicey - why not just get the 100 proof stuff in the Church?

 

That's the traditional take.

[Bhim]

The outlines of the Catholic answer to this is not all that complicated, although it can get tricky in individual cases.  Anyone who confesses belief in what the Church teaches and is baptised (allowances made for converts who die before they're baptised, etc.) is a Christian.  The occasion where someone is born again is in the sacrament of baptism. (I think classical Lutherans and Anglicans believe this, too.) But the set of Christians is not identical to the set of God's elect.  Who is predestined to heaven is known only to God. It cannot be known by any individual except by special, private revelation.

 

Someone who dies in a state of grace is assured of heaven. Again, that person might not be a Christian - the Church allows for pious non-Christians who are saved by faith counted as saving faith. It's a heresy to say that you have to be a baptized Catholic to be saved.

 

Most of those who die in a state of grace still are not perfected in love.  So they go to Purgatory, where their attachment to self and other creatures is gradually burned out of them, to be replaced by love of God.  Some are so perfected in love in this life that they go directly to heaven.  But once you get your foot in the door of Purgatory - you're in!  It's been said that the joy of the souls suffering purification in Purgatory is second only to the joy of the souls in heaven.

 

Evangelical Protestants confuse terms.  They equate "Christian" with "saved" or with "the elect."  The Catholic view is that there can be evil Christians- think of medieval frescoes with popes and nuns sliding into hell - and good non-Christians (maybe Plato and Socrates, some of them used to think, and so on).  The good non-Christians meme has not been emphasized much, though, for obvious reasons, and in any case, it's dicey - why not just get the 100 proof stuff in the Church?

 

That's the traditional take.

 

Just a side-comment here Ficino.  Although you are giving voice to the Roman Catholic take on soteriology, your Calvinist leanings show.  I greatly enjoyed reading this post!

[Bhim]

While I’d like to further converse with you about all of this, I will probably have to place you on a ‘waiting list’ for dialogue at a later time since I’m presently responding to three or four other Ex-C members already (such as StJeff, Ficino,WarriorPoet, and a couple of others). However, since you were forthcoming enough to ask me to “put up or shut up,” and in the spirit of amiability, I’ll at least leave you with a short list that will indicate “some” aspects of my general position on Christianity, for what it’s actually worth to anyone:

 

(1) Theistic Evolutionist, (2) Historically Submerged Trinitarian Neo-evangelical, (3) Quasi-Ecumenicalist, (4) Annihilationist, (5) Quasi-Cessationist, (6) Non-Inerrantist, (7) Non-Rapture/Partially Preteristic Premillenialist (…whatever the heck that is!    )

Hi 2PhiloVoid.  Thanks for clarifying your position on so many issues.  On the one hand, the fact that you made this post causes me to respect you orders of magnitude more than I do any other ex-C Christian poster.  Unlike the rest of those God-damned obfuscators, you are honest about what you believe.  On the other hand, you've taken away from the entertainment value of the Lion's Den.  We must all admit that fundamentally, the Lion's Den exists so that we can beat up Christians.  The followers of Jesus have persecuted us, in some cases for a lifetime, and this is our chance to subject the resident Christians to some small fraction of the grief which they inflicted on us.  But based on your self-identification, I realize you are not among the Christians that I hate, and I would no longer derive any pleasure from causing you pain.  I've a few thoughts on the labels that you have assigned yourself.  I will use numbers corresponding to your list.

 

1. This is very rare.  I know a couple emergent Christians who are theistic evolutionists, but even among emergents I find this to be rare.  A theistic evolutionist is disbelieving the authorial intent of the creation account, and is likely to disbelieve other parts of the Bible, such as the ones which imply that Hindus go to hell unless we are converted. If you are saying that you will refrain from destroying my culture and way of life by not sending missionaries to my homeland, then you have my eternal gratitude.

 

2. I've always understood neo-evangelicals to be evangelicals who believe in the social gospel. However, standard evangelicals are defined by a belief that non-Christians go to eternal conscious torment in hell. It would indeed be a tenuous proposition to come to the social aid of non-Christians while simultaneously condemning us to hell, so I imagine neo-evangelicals as secretly disbelieving in eternal hell for non-Christians.  Can I assume that you publicly disbelieve in this most detestable doctrine?

 

3. I'd be most interested to know how "quasi" modifies "ecumenicalist" in this context!

 

4. So you unequivocally don't believe that I am eternally condemned to hell!  For this alone I'm thankful.

 

5. The spiritual gifts aren't relevant to me, since I'm a non-Christian.  But good to know.

 

6. Also good to know that you have the flexibility to ignore the more immoral teachings of Jesus (specifically the doctrine of eternal hell).

 

7. Again not relevant to me.  But I do still enjoy Christian theology as a hobby.  If I may comment: "non-rapture" and "partial preterist" are redundant, since all partial preterists disbelieve in a rapture.  They also believe in a literal return of Christ, thereby negating post-millenialism.  I suppose you could be a partial-preterist amillenialist (I'm not sure, I'll have to think about this).  But perhaps you could more concisely state your eschatology by simply calling yourself a partial preterist?

 

Back when I was a Christian, I was a premillenialist and believed in a post-tribulation rapture.  For whatever that's worth.

[duderonomy]

 

While I’d like to further converse with you about all of this, I will probably have to place you on a ‘waiting list’ for dialogue at a later time since I’m presently responding to three or four other Ex-C members already (such as StJeff, Ficino,WarriorPoet, and a couple of others). However, since you were forthcoming enough to ask me to “put up or shut up,” and in the spirit of amiability, I’ll at least leave you with a short list that will indicate “some” aspects of my general position on Christianity, for what it’s actually worth to anyone:

 

(1) Theistic Evolutionist, (2) Historically Submerged Trinitarian Neo-evangelical, (3) Quasi-Ecumenicalist, (4) Annihilationist, (5) Quasi-Cessationist, (6) Non-Inerrantist, (7) Non-Rapture/Partially Preteristic Premillenialist (…whatever the heck that is!    )

Hi 2PhiloVoid.  Thanks for clarifying your position on so many issues.  On the one hand, the fact that you made this post causes me to respect you orders of magnitude more than I do any other ex-C Christian poster.  Unlike the rest of those God-damned obfuscators, you are honest about what you believe.  On the other hand, you've taken away from the entertainment value of the Lion's Den.  We must all admit that fundamentally, the Lion's Den exists so that we can beat up Christians.  The followers of Jesus have persecuted us, in some cases for a lifetime, and this is our chance to subject the resident Christians to some small fraction of the grief which they inflicted on us.  But based on your self-identification, I realize you are not among the Christians that I hate, and I would no longer derive any pleasure from causing you pain.  I've a few thoughts on the labels that you have assigned yourself.  I will use numbers corresponding to your list.

 

1. This is very rare.  I know a couple emergent Christians who are theistic evolutionists, but even among emergents I find this to be rare.  A theistic evolutionist is disbelieving the authorial intent of the creation account, and is likely to disbelieve other parts of the Bible, such as the ones which imply that Hindus go to hell unless we are converted. If you are saying that you will refrain from destroying my culture and way of life by not sending missionaries to my homeland, then you have my eternal gratitude.

 

2. I've always understood neo-evangelicals to be evangelicals who believe in the social gospel. However, standard evangelicals are defined by a belief that non-Christians go to eternal conscious torment in hell. It would indeed be a tenuous proposition to come to the social aid of non-Christians while simultaneously condemning us to hell, so I imagine neo-evangelicals as secretly disbelieving in eternal hell for non-Christians.  Can I assume that you publicly disbelieve in this most detestable doctrine?

 

3. I'd be most interested to know how "quasi" modifies "ecumenicalist" in this context!

 

4. So you unequivocally don't believe that I am eternally condemned to hell!  For this alone I'm thankful.

 

5. The spiritual gifts aren't relevant to me, since I'm a non-Christian.  But good to know.

 

6. Also good to know that you have the flexibility to ignore the more immoral teachings of Jesus (specifically the doctrine of eternal hell).

 

7. Again not relevant to me.  But I do still enjoy Christian theology as a hobby.  If I may comment: "non-rapture" and "partial preterist" are redundant, since all partial preterists disbelieve in a rapture.  They also believe in a literal return of Christ, thereby negating post-millenialism.  I suppose you could be a partial-preterist amillenialist (I'm not sure, I'll have to think about this).  But perhaps you could more concisely state your eschatology by simply calling yourself a partial preterist?

 

Back when I was a Christian, I was a premillenialist and believed in a post-tribulation rapture.  For whatever that's worth.

 

 

Jesus, why don't you two get a room?

 

On the other hand, thanks for your long winded response to my questions, Philo.  Educated men like yourself, know that you must let go of esoteric and lofty phrases, and thirty dollar words, and speak to your audience.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

Jesus, why don't you two get a room?

 

 

 

[duderonomy]

 

 

 

Jesus, why don't you two get a room?

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you. I'll be here all week.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

Just a side-comment here Ficino.  Although you are giving voice to the Roman Catholic take on soteriology, your Calvinist leanings show.  I greatly enjoyed reading this post!

 

Er... uh... well, St. Thomas (not the guy with the touchy feely hands) and the Dominicans were always sounder on God's sovereignty and predestination than Wm. Lane Craig and his Jesuit-inspired Molinist heresy!

[Ravenstar]

Just want to jump in and express my utter joy at witnessing such a restrained and polite discourse on such a touchy subject… emotions can run high, and usually do here, understandably so… as many of us have had less than positive experiences here in the Den with our Christian visitors.

 

I am going to keep reading this thread, when I can, because I'm absolutely mystified by an intelligent and well-read Christian. 2Philovoid - you have shown remarkable humility, thoughtfulness and a quality of being able to remain objective. I admire that. There's plenty of bait here… and you aren't biting.

 

Interesting. There may be something to learn here.

[2PhiloVoid]

Just want to jump in and express my utter joy at witnessing such a restrained and polite discourse on such a touchy subject… emotions can run high, and usually do here, understandably so… as many of us have had less than positive experiences here in the Den with our Christian visitors.

 

I am going to keep reading this thread, when I can, because I'm absolutely mystified by an intelligent and well-read Christian. 2Philovoid - you have shown remarkable humility, thoughtfulness and a quality of being able to remain objective. I admire that. There's plenty of bait here… and you aren't biting.

 

Interesting. There may be something to learn here.

 

Well, thank you, Ravenstar, for the positive comments.     All in all, my own experience here has been quite interesting and productive as well so far.

 

As I move forward to future discussions, I will continue to do my Shakespearean best to only offer what is most "meet" for the Lions.

 

Peace,

2PhiloVoid

[Bhim]

Jesus, why don't you two get a room?

 

Woah, we're a long way off from that.  Maybe it's the academic in me rearing its ugly head, but I have a remarkable capacity for dispassionately trading thoughts with a person whose beliefs I vilify.  Lest I equivocate, let me be clear in stating that I do believe evangelical Christianity to be a morally-bankrupt religion.  Anyone who subscribes to evangelical Christianity, therefore, is devoid of any real morality and ought not live among civilized men.  I can appreciate that 2PhiloVoid does not subscribe to practically any of the important doctrines of evangelical Christianity, but I am fundamentally disturbed that he pays them even token homage.  At the risk of fulfilling Godwin's Law, I would liken him to a neo-Nazi who gets squeamish when it comes time to gas some Jews.  I know what he is, but I appreciate the fact that he gets squeamish.

 

Given how Jesus Christ describes eternal hell, I think the Nazi analogy is apt in this case.

 

Er... uh... well, St. Thomas (not the guy with the touchy feely hands) and the Dominicans were always sounder on God's sovereignty and predestination than Wm. Lane Craig and his Jesuit-inspired Molinist heresy!

Perhaps the fact that not one reference in this statement is lost on me is indicative that I need to move on with my post-Christian life.  It never bothered me that Molinists equated God's foreknowledge with actual sovereignty, but as a Christian I always found solace in John Piper's take on the sovereignty of God, and the fact that he felt no need to recover anything resembling free will from his theology.

 

EDIT: Also, if it makes anyone feel any better, in my earlier post I did basically tell Phil that I can respect him because his theology deviates from the obvious interpretation of the Bible too sharply to even be called remotely orthodox.

[duderonomy]

 

Jesus, why don't you two get a room?

 

Woah, we're a long way off from that.  Maybe it's the academic in me rearing its ugly head, but I have a remarkable capacity for dispassionately trading thoughts with a person whose beliefs I vilify.  Lest I equivocate, let me be clear in stating that I do believe evangelical Christianity to be a morally-bankrupt religion.  Anyone who subscribes to evangelical Christianity, therefore, is devoid of any real morality and ought not live among civilized men.  I can appreciate that 2PhiloVoid does not subscribe to practically any of the important doctrines of evangelical Christianity, but I am fundamentally disturbed that he pays them even token homage.  At the risk of fulfilling Godwin's Law, I would liken him to a neo-Nazi who gets squeamish when it comes time to gas some Jews.  I know what he is, but I appreciate the fact that he gets squeamish.

 

Given how Jesus Christ describes eternal hell, I think the Nazi analogy is apt in this case.

 

Er... uh... well, St. Thomas (not the guy with the touchy feely hands) and the Dominicans were always sounder on God's sovereignty and predestination than Wm. Lane Craig and his Jesuit-inspired Molinist heresy!

Perhaps the fact that not one reference in this statement is lost on me is indicative that I need to move on with my post-Christian life.  It never bothered me that Molinists equated God's foreknowledge with actual sovereignty, but as a Christian I always found solace in John Piper's take on the sovereignty of God, and the fact that he felt no need to recover anything resembling free will from his theology.

 

EDIT: Also, if it makes anyone feel any better, in my earlier post I did basically tell Phil that I can respect him because his theology deviates from the obvious interpretation of the Bible too sharply to even be called remotely orthodox.

 

 

So is Philo a TrueChristian™ or not, Bhim?  Or is he making up his own Christianity as I asked somewhere else? My thought is that while he admits that some parts of the Bible seem to be fiction, he never says plainly that he believes that they are or not.

 

Brainiacs are wonderful, but brainiacs that can't nail down their own view of their religion without lofty esoteric phrases and thirty dollar words are something else.

Not that I'm dumb, but because it's true that if one can't explain their theology to a bartender [ I borrowed this phrase] then it's the theology of the elite, and not the theology of ordinary people.  To them I would say enjoy your conversation over drinks, Bhim, but remember the story of the scorpion [whatever] that took a passenger across the river, and bit him just because that was it's nature.

 

The rush to kiss Philos ass, I don't get. He's no Hank. 

[2PhiloVoid]

 

While I’d like to further converse with you about all of this, I will probably have to place you on a ‘waiting list’ for dialogue at a later time since I’m presently responding to three or four other Ex-C members already (such as StJeff, Ficino,WarriorPoet, and a couple of others). However, since you were forthcoming enough to ask me to “put up or shut up,” and in the spirit of amiability, I’ll at least leave you with a short list that will indicate “some” aspects of my general position on Christianity, for what it’s actually worth to anyone:

 

(1) Theistic Evolutionist, (2) Historically Submerged Trinitarian Neo-evangelical, (3) Quasi-Ecumenicalist, (4) Annihilationist, (5) Quasi-Cessationist, (6) Non-Inerrantist, (7) Non-Rapture/Partially Preteristic Premillenialist (…whatever the heck that is!    )

Hi 2PhiloVoid.  Thanks for clarifying your position on so many issues.  On the one hand, the fact that you made this post causes me to respect you orders of magnitude more than I do any other ex-C Christian poster.  Unlike the rest of those God-damned obfuscators, you are honest about what you believe.  On the other hand, you've taken away from the entertainment value of the Lion's Den.  We must all admit that fundamentally, the Lion's Den exists so that we can beat up Christians.  The followers of Jesus have persecuted us, in some cases for a lifetime, and this is our chance to subject the resident Christians to some small fraction of the grief which they inflicted on us.  But based on your self-identification, I realize you are not among the Christians that I hate, and I would no longer derive any pleasure from causing you pain.  I've a few thoughts on the labels that you have assigned yourself.  I will use numbers corresponding to your list.

 

1. This is very rare.  I know a couple emergent Christians who are theistic evolutionists, but even among emergents I find this to be rare.  A theistic evolutionist is disbelieving the authorial intent of the creation account, and is likely to disbelieve other parts of the Bible, such as the ones which imply that Hindus go to hell unless we are converted. If you are saying that you will refrain from destroying my culture and way of life by not sending missionaries to my homeland, then you have my eternal gratitude.

 

2. I've always understood neo-evangelicals to be evangelicals who believe in the social gospel. However, standard evangelicals are defined by a belief that non-Christians go to eternal conscious torment in hell. It would indeed be a tenuous proposition to come to the social aid of non-Christians while simultaneously condemning us to hell, so I imagine neo-evangelicals as secretly disbelieving in eternal hell for non-Christians.  Can I assume that you publicly disbelieve in this most detestable doctrine?

 

3. I'd be most interested to know how "quasi" modifies "ecumenicalist" in this context!

 

4. So you unequivocally don't believe that I am eternally condemned to hell!  For this alone I'm thankful.

 

5. The spiritual gifts aren't relevant to me, since I'm a non-Christian.  But good to know.

 

6. Also good to know that you have the flexibility to ignore the more immoral teachings of Jesus (specifically the doctrine of eternal hell).

 

7. Again not relevant to me.  But I do still enjoy Christian theology as a hobby.  If I may comment: "non-rapture" and "partial preterist" are redundant, since all partial preterists disbelieve in a rapture.  They also believe in a literal return of Christ, thereby negating post-millenialism.  I suppose you could be a partial-preterist amillenialist (I'm not sure, I'll have to think about this).  But perhaps you could more concisely state your eschatology by simply calling yourself a partial preterist?

 

Back when I was a Christian, I was a premillenialist and believed in a post-tribulation rapture.  For whatever that's worth.

 

 

Hey Bhim!

 

I thought I’d better respond to your post so you wouldn’t think you’d wasted your time on addressing my previous comments. From what you’ve shared about your experiences with previous Christians, both online and offline, I’d say you have a fairly good reason to be somewhat defensive. (Heck, even I ran off a ‘Faith Movement’ acquaintance of mine who was less than courteous, and more than intrusive in my life. This came about because, in addition to my being cajoled by his "Super-Faith" onslaught over a period of a few years, he would also call me numerous times, breathing into the phone while saying nothing, and then hanging up. I finally came to the realization that I wasn’t dealing with Superman, but with his Bizarro-World counterpart. And I helped him quickly reach the conclusion that I wasn’t just a “Billy Bateson” wannabe.)

 

I have read your response, and I’m sorry if my presence here has doused a bit of the community “spirit” that transpires in this section of the site. I hope you know I do appreciate that you’ve taken the opportunity to comment on my short list of personal religious beliefs. As you’ll notice, I tried to follow the same number system you presented.

 

(1.) Yes, it does seem that Theistic Evolutionists are quite rare. Admittedly, it poses the potential for my being castigated by more Fundamental Christians, if and when they find out my beliefs. But, these are the beliefs I’ve always had, and I have my own academic reasons for holding them, as opposed to the typical run-of-the-mill reasons Fundamentalists have for holding theirs (i.e. “my pastor told me such and such...”). At the same time, I don’t feel any animosity towards them. If they want to interpret the Bible in a more ultra-literal fashion, I figure they have the freedom to do so, even if I can’t join in with them in that way.

 

As far as missionaries are concerned, well….lets just say that while on the one hand, missionaries are a part of Christian faith, on the other hand, I don’t agree with the kinds and forms of missions that are typically sent, representing the American Fundamentalist mindset. 

 

(2.) Neo-evangelicalism represents a modified range of more socially and philosophically conscious beliefs and approaches. Sure, the social dimension of assisting even one’s enemy is an aspect of belief among them (as it really is supposed to be for all Christians), but they also diverge from Fundamentalists in that they reinterpret the nature of the Bible. They may even firmly repudiate Dispensationalism for some other eschatological viewpoint.

 

Even though I presently label myself as Neo-Evangelical, I suppose if I allowed other Christians to label me instead, they’d think that I personally qualify as an “Emergent” Christian. I’ve thought about that possibility, but I’m still studying it and wrestling with it. Maybe I am; maybe I’m not. 

 

(3.) When it comes to my claim to “ecumenicalism,” I say that I’m “quasi-“ because while I have no problem in fellowshipping with Christians from other traditions (i.e. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, various flavors of Protestantism), I do have my limits, and I do draw a line. I don’t believe in a “come as you are” or “fully open door inclusivism.” So, Mormons? No. Jehovah’s Witnesses? No. Ultra-Liberal Mainlines? Mmmmm…maybe. Faith Movement? [i feel a headache comin’ on now. Excuse me a moment.......] On top of all of this, being that I’m a philosopher at heart, I have no problem questioning anyone and anything. And let’s face it. Religious people who harbor a cultic or polarized mentality many times hate being questioned, even when applied with kindness. I have no qualms about questions, whether giving them or receiving them (assuming I have reasonable time, of course).

 

(4.) As an Annihilationist, I don’t think there is an eternal hell. If there even is a hell in some 'location,' it isn’t eternal, nor will it continue to be populated by the conscious. I am unequivocal about this. Additionally as a “questioner,” I ask myself every day “Who gets to judge all these people when it’s all said and done?” Well, know full well it's not me.

 

(5.) Sure. Spiritual Gifts can seem a superfluous subject, and for some reason, this aspect of Christianity has always been a secondary issue for me. 

 

 

(6.) (LOL!) Well, I don’t know that I ignore Jesus’ “immoral” teachings. Rather, it may be that through my apparent flexibility (or actual willingness to explore various viewpoints), I have a different interpretative matrix. Let's go with that, shall we?  

 

(7.) No. There really isn’t a name for my position. All I can say is that Eschatology is one area on which I particularly try to remain “open” to in my research. I don’t think any Christian group, movement, or theology has the “hot-line” to God on this issue. They like to think they do, but how many date predictions have to come and go before we start realizing that ain't so.

 

However, at the present, I tend to think the apocalyptic language of Jesus in the Gospels is primarily Preterist(ic), and that the similar language evident among the other New Testament books is primarily, although not exclusively, Premillenial in nature (but not Dispensational). Sure, I could be dead wrong! And I’m ok with that… But, then the question is, are other people ok with that fact that I'm ok with that?   

 

(8.) …Hmmm. Well, no one’s perfect, Bhim! (At least you’re honest about it—lol!)

 

Thanks for the comments, Bhim! Good to hear from you.

 

Take care,

2PhiloVoid

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Please forgive me for picking up a part of your conversation with Bhim, but I wanted to ask you something about what you said.

 

[snipped]

 

(1.) Yes, it does seem that Theistic Evolutionists are quite rare. Admittedly, it poses the potential for my being castigated by more Fundamental Christians, if and when they find out my beliefs. But, these are the beliefs I’ve always had, and I have my own academic reasons for holding them, as opposed to the typical run-of-the-mill reasons Fundamentalists have for holding theirs (i.e. “my pastor told me such and such...”). At the same time, I don’t feel any animosity towards them. If they want to interpret the Bible in a more ultra-literal fashion, I figure they have the freedom to do so, even if I can’t join in with them in that way.

 

But what about when their interpretation leads them to do immoral things, like:

-bombing abortion clinics and murdering health professionals

-parents abusing their gay teens to the point of suicide

-encroaching into the public square and threatening the constitutional separation between state and church (basically infringing on others' rights)

-parents who physically discipline young kids to the point of abuse

-patriarchal quiverfull families where girls and women are treated as second class citizens

 

These are just the first examples that came to mind, I haven't done any current googling or reading to come up with those.

 

Under the law, fundies don't have the right to do most of these things that they base on their ultra-literal interpretation of the bible.  Do you still believe they have the freedom to act like this, and should they?

 

[duderonomy]

Bhim,

 

I think I need to apologize for what I said in post #44. While I stand by my ideas, I have NO idea why I singled you out instead of speaking to Philo directly.  Whether I am right or wrong isn't the issue, people can decide that for themselves, but I feel that I was out of line. 

 

I respect your intelligence, yet I'm warning you to be careful in dealing with Philo? I'm not happy because you are being polite to a poster that is in turn polite also? 

 

What a moron I can be sometimes. No sarcasm here, Bhim. I really am sorry and I hope I didn't offend you.   

[♦ ficino ♦]

(1.) Yes, it does seem that Theistic Evolutionists are quite rare.

I thought they are quite common, actually, though probably not among evangelicals.

[Bhim]

Bhim,

 

I think I need to apologize for what I said in post #44. While I stand by my ideas, I have NO idea why I singled you out instead of speaking to Philo directly.  Whether I am right or wrong isn't the issue, people can decide that for themselves, but I feel that I was out of line. 

 

I respect your intelligence, yet I'm warning you to be careful in dealing with Philo? I'm not happy because you are being polite to a poster that is in turn polite also? 

 

What a moron I can be sometimes. No sarcasm here, Bhim. I really am sorry and I hope I didn't offend you.   

 

Duderonomy, just so you know I take your warning with all sincerity and seriousness.  Like others here, I am wary to trust evangelical Christians, and part of my questioning 2PhiloVoid is to understand if he fits into the category of enemy or not.  Right now I strongly tend to think he doesn't, but of course I'm always keeping my ears open with regards to these people.

 

Thanks for caring enough to speak as you did.

[2PhiloVoid]

 

Please forgive me for picking up a part of your conversation with Bhim, but I wanted to ask you something about what you said.

 

[snipped]

 

(1.) Yes, it does seem that Theistic Evolutionists are quite rare. Admittedly, it poses the potential for my being castigated by more Fundamental Christians, if and when they find out my beliefs. But, these are the beliefs I’ve always had, and I have my own academic reasons for holding them, as opposed to the typical run-of-the-mill reasons Fundamentalists have for holding theirs (i.e. “my pastor told me such and such...”). At the same time, I don’t feel any animosity towards them. If they want to interpret the Bible in a more ultra-literal fashion, I figure they have the freedom to do so, even if I can’t join in with them in that way.

 

But what about when their interpretation leads them to do immoral things, like:

-bombing abortion clinics and murdering health professionals

-parents abusing their gay teens to the point of suicide

-encroaching into the public square and threatening the constitutional separation between state and church (basically infringing on others' rights)

-parents who physically discipline young kids to the point of abuse

-patriarchal quiverfull families where girls and women are treated as second class citizens

 

These are just the first examples that came to mind, I haven't done any current googling or reading to come up with those.

 

Under the law, fundies don't have the right to do most of these things that they base on their ultra-literal interpretation of the bible.  Do you still believe they have the freedom to act like this, and should they?

 

 

 

Hi FreeThinkerNZ,

 

That's quite alright--pick away if you see it needs some pickin'!

 

And you are quite right to point this out. Perhaps I should use the term 'ultra-literal' a little more literally, if I'm going to use it at all. By this I mean that I originally had in mind only that some Christians will adhere with extreme tenacity to their interpretations, without any recourse or consideration to alternative possibilities. But I understand that many people (i.e. non-Christians), being sensitized to the ridiculous shenanigans of the Wackadoo Westboro Baptists and other groups, like 'Christian Identity,' will hold more to the typical connotations in connection to the hyper form of literalism.

 

It's just then, we need more terms. Because, if I consider myself in some ways 'literal' in regard to the Bible, but I'm in no way envisaging the shape of my faith to be that of Fundamentalists, then what does that make Fundamentalists who believe very strongly, but still don't do the crazy things you've listed above?

 

Ok, then. In essence, Hyper-Fundamentalists should not be able to act in ways that are physically violent or a direct and abusive desecration of other people's viewpoints and/or person-hood.

 

Great questions, Free.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid