Grandpa Harley Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 I'm here all week... try the Fish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I have to say as a former fundamentalist, dismissing fundamentalist Christians as nut jobs is a little simple minded...which seems to be your main problem (that is you seem to paint Christian groups you don't agree with in very broad strokes.) I also think your number of 61,000 is VERY conservative...remember poles only show what people CALL themselves. Many people who don't call themselves fundamentalist are pretty fundy. Some call themselves Evangelicals, but there is no difference between the two in any practical way. I have a few litmus test questions I would ask of someone. If, for instance, they are against gay marriage I would pretty much consider them a fundy. If they believe having sex outside of marriage is ALWAYS wrong, they are probably a fundy. If they think this is a Christian nation, they are probably a fundy. I also think you are naive if you think fundies, even as a minority, could not take control of the government. Nazis were a minority in Germany but took control, any minority group that is loud enough and well organized enough could take advantage of the right situation to take control of the government. I'm not saying they will in this country for certain, but it is a possibility we need to consider. Kuroikaze, The number may be conservative, but it's credible source data. In contrast though, by your criteria you don't have to be a Christian to be a fundie as the gay marriage and marital fidelity issues are not exclusive to them. Just for clarity then, are there Christian groups that you consider to be non-fundamentalists? Or are we generalizing all Christians into the fundamentalist corner? Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 You've got a point, GH; the higher criticism (and others) did indeed offer breakpoints for differing authorship in several books; such elements in the Genesis narratives and some others caused quite a stir when first proposed. The author of the first gospel, however, is commonly accepted to be just one individual. Buddy Yet there are numerous versions of Mark... lines missing and added... some times whole tales. In the end, we have a pretty uncritical acceptance of Papias, and that has never really been questioned until modern times. The dual appearance of the 'feeding of the multitude' is something of a smoking gun for the idea that the author of Mark didn't know what the hell he was writing, or was more than one author writing at different times and later collected and badly edited. Who ever wrote the collection had little or no knowledge of the geography of the region, which is unlikely for a man who was supposed to have walked 'with the lord'... Hello GH, That seems to be the case, I understand. Plus, there are long lists of observations and conclusions by both lower and higher criticisms; fascinating lines of pursuit worthy of conversation and study that have occupied the lives of scholars for some time. I doubt you and I will be able to exhaust the resources available in the time I have remaining, but we might profitably examine a single case at a time along with its' implications if you're interested. I certainly haven't personally looked at each assertion. Not to be argumentative, but if we're moving on to Mark, are we granting me the question regarding Matthew 5? It isn't a large issue, but we would be ill-mannered to leave Sparrow's question hanging at this point Buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 You've got a point, GH; the higher criticism (and others) did indeed offer breakpoints for differing authorship in several books; such elements in the Genesis narratives and some others caused quite a stir when first proposed. The author of the first gospel, however, is commonly accepted to be just one individual. Buddy Yet there are numerous versions of Mark... lines missing and added... some times whole tales. In the end, we have a pretty uncritical acceptance of Papias, and that has never really been questioned until modern times. The dual appearance of the 'feeding of the multitude' is something of a smoking gun for the idea that the author of Mark didn't know what the hell he was writing, or was more than one author writing at different times and later collected and badly edited. Who ever wrote the collection had little or no knowledge of the geography of the region, which is unlikely for a man who was supposed to have walked 'with the lord'... Hello GH, That seems to be the case, I understand. Plus, there are long lists of observations and conclusions by both lower and higher criticisms; fascinating lines of pursuit worthy of conversation and study that have occupied the lives of scholars for some time. I doubt you and I will be able to exhaust the resources available in the time I have remaining, but we might profitably examine a single case at a time along with its' implications if you're interested. I certainly haven't personally looked at each assertion. Not to be argumentative, but if we're moving on to Mark, are we granting me the question regarding Matthew 5? It isn't a large issue, but we would be ill-mannered to leave Sparrow's question hanging at this point Buddy. just realised, I answered a comment I thought you made. 'First Gospel' to me read as 'the earliest canonical gospel' which is Mark, based on dataing. To me, personally, the first 'gospel' is actually the plain sayings Gospel of Thomas (which I would think you give no more time to than you would to Old Moore's Almanack) You meant Matthew, since that's the way is presented in the Post-Trentino bible? And specifically Matt 5? Did I miss a question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 I have to say as a former fundamentalist, dismissing fundamentalist Christians as nut jobs is a little simple minded...which seems to be your main problem (that is you seem to paint Christian groups you don't agree with in very broad strokes.) I also think your number of 61,000 is VERY conservative...remember poles only show what people CALL themselves. Many people who don't call themselves fundamentalist are pretty fundy. Some call themselves Evangelicals, but there is no difference between the two in any practical way. I have a few litmus test questions I would ask of someone. If, for instance, they are against gay marriage I would pretty much consider them a fundy. If they believe having sex outside of marriage is ALWAYS wrong, they are probably a fundy. If they think this is a Christian nation, they are probably a fundy. I also think you are naive if you think fundies, even as a minority, could not take control of the government. Nazis were a minority in Germany but took control, any minority group that is loud enough and well organized enough could take advantage of the right situation to take control of the government. I'm not saying they will in this country for certain, but it is a possibility we need to consider. Kuroikaze, The number may be conservative, but it's credible source data. In contrast though, by your criteria you don't have to be a Christian to be a fundie as the gay marriage and marital fidelity issues are not exclusive to them. Just for clarity then, are there Christian groups that you consider to be non-fundamentalists? Or are we generalizing all Christians into the fundamentalist corner? Buddy I'd say you're trying to make out the the Zealots who object to civil unions and equal rights for gay folk aren't fundy for some other reason other than that they're busy bodies who would scream loud if someone tried to legislate AGAINST them... which is the sub-text of the No Civil Union For Gays movement, wherein they wish to state in the Constitution of the United States that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. Imagine if the people who wanted to explicitly state Black folk were not human had got their way... There again, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation now. Who else has a beef with Gay Civil Unions and Equal Rights other than followers of The God(s) of Abraham? Mask slipping again? Do we need to show 'backbone' to give a proper message about who it is OK to fall in love with? Hmmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Kuroikaze,The number may be conservative, but it's credible source data. In contrast though, by your criteria you don't have to be a Christian to be a fundie as the gay marriage and marital fidelity issues are not exclusive to them. Just for clarity then, are there Christian groups that you consider to be non-fundamentalists? Or are we generalizing all Christians into the fundamentalist corner? Buddy I didn't say it wasn't credible, I just pointed out that your interpretation of that data is wrong. Sure not all Christians are fundies...some don't give a rats ass if gays get married or try to get "creation science" taught in science classrooms. I've known many of them. Gay marriage isn't a religious issue? News to me, I have yet to meet a single person who thought it was wrong who did not base the opinion upon religious reasons. But to say that fundamentalists don't' have political power is just silly, we wouldn't be having this discussion if they didn't, hell the current president is pretty close to being a fundy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Kuroikaze,The number may be conservative, but it's credible source data. In contrast though, by your criteria you don't have to be a Christian to be a fundie as the gay marriage and marital fidelity issues are not exclusive to them. Just for clarity then, are there Christian groups that you consider to be non-fundamentalists? Or are we generalizing all Christians into the fundamentalist corner? Buddy I didn't say it wasn't credible, I just pointed out that your interpretation of that data is wrong. Sure not all Christians are fundies...some don't give a rats ass if gays get married or try to get "creation science" taught in science classrooms. I've known many of them. Gay marriage isn't a religious issue? News to me, I have yet to meet a single person who thought it was wrong who did not base the opinion upon religious reasons. But to say that fundamentalists don't' have political power is just silly, we wouldn't be having this discussion if they didn't, hell the current president is pretty close to being a fundy. K, Read the line again, if you don't mind. Of course gay marriage is an issue of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. Marital fidelity and promiscuity are issues of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. These are issues of concern to communities, to social workers, to legislators, and to conscientious parents and educators. Feel free to critique my interpretation of the data. Fundamentalism is defined, and fundamentalists may be characterized by behaviors which are generally defined; your objections would benefit by your being informed a bit more before you publish. The imprecision with which you address some issues makes one wonder if you understand simple Christianity. That's pretty harsh, I know, but the things you suggest (as mandatory beliefs and behaviors for Christians) are unusual, to say the least. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 Since I dislike skulking and weaselling... This from Buddy to me... and I think it should be shared... GH,I need to follow up with you, but I'm doing so privately; perhaps it will serve better than a public exchange. You ask, "Did I miss a question" in a light hearted manner. Yes; in fact you spent no little effort attempting to derail the exchange. When called on it, you turned a bit harsh. That's a polite understatement. And not for the first time you ask, "Mask slipping again?" No, I don't have a mask, but you're off track and have again misunderstood the train of thought, reading unusual things into simple conversation. "You and I wouldn't be having this conversation," you say. Again. As I've said, the picture is Africa and not me; I'm from TX; think boots, guns, and cow flops. At 25 posts a day for several months across several threads, no one would expect you to keep up with the subject matter to which you are responding. Both the rate and post intervals suggest you might be pushing your own limits a bit. It sometimes seems that you run across the threads like a virtuoso across a keyboard, and even if the tune you're playing doesn't fit the thread, you play on. I wanted to say those things privately rather than start an argument on the thread. I appreciate your thoughtful contributions, but they seem rare; more often your comments seem somewhat disjointed and somewhat off track. I don't want to be either rude or dismissive, but thought perhaps you might be unaware of the disconnect. In hope of genuine [here the author ceases] First of all, an unreserved apology, since Buddy isn't black... Now, pleasantry out of the way... "And not for the first time you ask, "Mask slipping again?" No, I don't have a mask, but you're off track and have again misunderstood the train of thought, reading unusual things into simple conversation." I'm not alone in reading you as saying that lobbying for legislation that limits the rights of Gay Folk isn't religious... which it is... and the implied undertone that you've not attempted to disabuse us of, that that is a 'good thing'... So establish that is a wrong view of your thoughts and I'#ll apologise for that. "You ask, "Did I miss a question" in a light hearted manner. Yes; in fact you spent no little effort attempting to derail the exchange. When called on it, you turned a bit harsh. That's a polite understatement." Said this before... I DON'T HAVE TO BE NICE TO CHRISTIANS... Ex- yes... it's why I'm here... If I can help one person not go back into the darkness then I'll have done the 'starfish stranded on the beach' trick... On to the main part...I explained that the first Gospel to me is most likely Thomas, but since you wouldn't give that the time of day, I assumed you meant Mark, which is the earliest chronologically. After the event I realised YOU meant Matthew as the first Gospel (which it only is in the Trentino bible). Chronology meant little to the editorship of the Bible, since 'spin', to use a modern term, was the primary concern. Matt is a worse patch work than Mark, using Markian sources and Lukian interpolations (Q and P from my already impugned memory)... Addressing Matt 5 The Beatitudes are a hang over from a REALLY old tradition, an Egyptian one to be exact. Pretty much like the 'unique' Lord's prayer... both date to what we know of the Aten religion of Akenaten. For a sorbet to clear the palate, I'd recommend reading 'The Prayers of the Cosmos' by Neil Douglas Klotz (isbn 006061995), which places the whole text outside the Hellenised context and into a 1st Century Aramaic one... As to the use of Confirm or fulfil... I answered that. The jury is out... You say BOTH words have to be the same one, I say they equally well needn't be and if they're not then Jesus wasn't saying that he'd supplanted or completed the old laws, but to usher in that time. To me, you're just playing the 'this is what I'm told and it has to be right' method of exegesis... the view that supports your a priori assumption have to be correct, when there is no evidence to say which reading is correct. So... impress me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 Kuroikaze,The number may be conservative, but it's credible source data. In contrast though, by your criteria you don't have to be a Christian to be a fundie as the gay marriage and marital fidelity issues are not exclusive to them. Just for clarity then, are there Christian groups that you consider to be non-fundamentalists? Or are we generalizing all Christians into the fundamentalist corner? Buddy I didn't say it wasn't credible, I just pointed out that your interpretation of that data is wrong. Sure not all Christians are fundies...some don't give a rats ass if gays get married or try to get "creation science" taught in science classrooms. I've known many of them. Gay marriage isn't a religious issue? News to me, I have yet to meet a single person who thought it was wrong who did not base the opinion upon religious reasons. But to say that fundamentalists don't' have political power is just silly, we wouldn't be having this discussion if they didn't, hell the current president is pretty close to being a fundy. K, Read the line again, if you don't mind. Of course gay marriage is an issue of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. Marital fidelity and promiscuity are issues of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. These are issues of concern to communities, to social workers, to legislators, and to conscientious parents and educators. Feel free to critique my interpretation of the data. Fundamentalism is defined, and fundamentalists may be characterized by behaviors which are generally defined; your objections would benefit by your being informed a bit more before you publish. The imprecision with which you address some issues makes one wonder if you understand simple Christianity. That's pretty harsh, I know, but the things you suggest (as mandatory beliefs and behaviors for Christians) are unusual, to say the least. Buddy So, all gays are promiscuous? Help me understand this... I would have thought allowing people to make promises of fidelity would be a positive thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 "You ask, "Did I miss a question" in a light hearted manner. Yes; in fact you spent no little effort attempting to derail the exchange. When called on it, you turned a bit harsh. That's a polite understatement." Said this before... I DON'T HAVE TO BE NICE TO CHRISTIANS... Ex- yes... it's why I'm here... If I can help one person not go back into the darkness then I'll have done the 'starfish stranded on the beach' trick... The question on the table was Sparrow's, not mine. Your rudeness was toward her, not me. The insensitivity which I imply was to your fellow Ex. BF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 If I've pissed Willa off, she'll let me know in no uncertain terms... But I'm sure my mother would appreciate you presuming to lecture me on manners.... especially since you're... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 On to the main part...I explained that the first Gospel to me is most likely Thomas, but since you wouldn't give that the time of day, I assumed you meant Mark, which is the earliest chronologically. After the event I realised YOU meant Matthew as the first Gospel (which it only is in the Trentino bible). Chronology meant little to the editorship of the Bible, since 'spin', to use a modern term, was the primary concern. Matt is a worse patch work than Mark, using Markian sources and Lukian interpolations (Q and P from my already impugned memory)... Perhaps you missed the Matthew reference because you weren't reading the posts to which you replied. You assumed Mark after the fact; the question was raised in Matthew 5 by Sparrow, but you seem to have steamrollered right over her. Addressing Matt 5 The Beatitudes are a hang over from a REALLY old tradition, an Egyptian one to be exact. Pretty much like the 'unique' Lord's prayer... both date to what we know of the Aten religion of Akenaten. For a sorbet to clear the palate, I'd recommend reading 'The Prayers of the Cosmos' by Neil Douglas Klotz (isbn 006061995), which places the whole text outside the Hellenised context and into a 1st Century Aramaic one... We weren't looking at the Beatitudes, nor did we mention them. We were addressing the law and its' fulfillment. Again, you launch a frontal assault at a windmill of your own creation. Equally impressive and pointless (literally). At whom do you aim? BF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Sure not all Christians are fundies...some don't give a rats ass if gays get married or try to get "creation science" taught in science classrooms. I've known many of them. Gay marriage isn't a religious issue? News to me, I have yet to meet a single person who thought it was wrong who did not base the opinion upon religious reasons. But to say that fundamentalists don't' have political power is just silly, we wouldn't be having this discussion if they didn't, hell the current president is pretty close to being a fundy. K, Read the line again, if you don't mind. Of course gay marriage is an issue of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. Marital fidelity and promiscuity are issues of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. These are issues of concern to communities, to social workers, to legislators, and to conscientious parents and educators. Feel free to critique my interpretation of the data.... Buddy So, all gays are promiscuous? Help me understand this... I would have thought allowing people to make promises of fidelity would be a positive thing... GH, Another windmill, I'm afraid. The sequence began with Kuroikaze commenting that he might categorize an individual based on their attitude regarding gay marriage or sex outside of marriage. We weren't discussing gay promiscuity, we were discussing categorization of persons according to their possibly fundamentalist leanings. Your broadside was aimed well but not at our subject matter. In answering for Kuroikaze, you rolled right over his reason for raising the issue. Again, perhaps it might be worthwhile to note the current content and flow of the thread to which you respond so that your response might be thoughtfully inserted into the stream of ideas. I'm elsewhere when the tirade goes by like a loco-motive, but your friends were speaking at the time and might like to have been heard. I personally would like to hear what you think on the subjects under discussion along with what others have to say on the matter. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 On to the main part...I explained that the first Gospel to me is most likely Thomas, but since you wouldn't give that the time of day, I assumed you meant Mark, which is the earliest chronologically. After the event I realised YOU meant Matthew as the first Gospel (which it only is in the Trentino bible). Chronology meant little to the editorship of the Bible, since 'spin', to use a modern term, was the primary concern. Matt is a worse patch work than Mark, using Markian sources and Lukian interpolations (Q and P from my already impugned memory)... Perhaps you missed the Matthew reference because you weren't reading the posts to which you replied. You assumed Mark after the fact; the question was raised in Matthew 5 by Sparrow, but you seem to have steamrollered right over her. Addressing Matt 5 The Beatitudes are a hang over from a REALLY old tradition, an Egyptian one to be exact. Pretty much like the 'unique' Lord's prayer... both date to what we know of the Aten religion of Akenaten. For a sorbet to clear the palate, I'd recommend reading 'The Prayers of the Cosmos' by Neil Douglas Klotz (isbn 006061995), which places the whole text outside the Hellenised context and into a 1st Century Aramaic one... We weren't looking at the Beatitudes, nor did we mention them. We were addressing the law and its' fulfillment. Again, you launch a frontal assault at a windmill of your own creation. Equally impressive and pointless (literally). At whom do you aim? BF You stated that Matt 5 was single author. Seems you're the senile one... as to 'after the fact' weaselling, we'll leave that to the ages... and who the FUCK died and made you the voice of other users and the conscience of the board, Christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted September 24, 2007 Author Share Posted September 24, 2007 Sure not all Christians are fundies...some don't give a rats ass if gays get married or try to get "creation science" taught in science classrooms. I've known many of them. Gay marriage isn't a religious issue? News to me, I have yet to meet a single person who thought it was wrong who did not base the opinion upon religious reasons. But to say that fundamentalists don't' have political power is just silly, we wouldn't be having this discussion if they didn't, hell the current president is pretty close to being a fundy. K, Read the line again, if you don't mind. Of course gay marriage is an issue of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. Marital fidelity and promiscuity are issues of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. These are issues of concern to communities, to social workers, to legislators, and to conscientious parents and educators. Feel free to critique my interpretation of the data.... Buddy So, all gays are promiscuous? Help me understand this... I would have thought allowing people to make promises of fidelity would be a positive thing... GH, Another windmill, I'm afraid. The sequence began with Kuroikaze commenting that he might categorize an individual based on their attitude regarding gay marriage or sex outside of marriage. We weren't discussing gay promiscuity, we were discussing categorization of persons according to their possibly fundamentalist leanings. Your broadside was aimed well but not at our subject matter. In answering for Kuroikaze, you rolled right over his reason for raising the issue. Again, perhaps it might be worthwhile to note the current content and flow of the thread to which you respond so that your response might be thoughtfully inserted into the stream of ideas. I'm elsewhere when the tirade goes by like a loco-motive, but your friends were speaking at the time and might like to have been heard. I personally would like to hear what you think on the subjects under discussion along with what others have to say on the matter. Buddy And CUNTHOLE, who the fuck are you to claim I was answering for K? I was asking for me, not for him... Seems you've now decided to remove the gloves, which makes it a whole lot more entertaining, Christian... You link Gay and Promiscuous in this paragraph Of course gay marriage is an issue of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. Marital fidelity and promiscuity are issues of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. These are issues of concern to communities, to social workers, to legislators, and to conscientious parents and educators. Feel free to critique my interpretation of the data.... Clear implication of linkage... so, arsewipe...explain... Or are you going to lecture me again on my reading and retention skills? Seems that's all you're capable of, since the one time you took a clear stance it nearly buried you despite trying to retconn the history... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Hey Buddy!Tell us another story about how you changed some one's life for he better by praying with them, or what God said to you the last time you had a conversation. I'm getting tired of Jewish history and superfluous words meant to impress us, along with the snippets of your daily life that you have enhanced in order to give the impression that you are not as dysfunctional as you appear to be, demonstrated by your compulsion to write about your goofy version of Christianity or whatever it is that you believe. I want to read some of the good stuff like visions of angels, or how God has worked miracles in your life. I want to be entertained! Patience, Dano. How many times in Abraham's life was he visited by angels? Hardly a daily affair. Besides, old fellow, we've already established that if someone were raised from the dead right in front of you, you'd not believe any differently than you do today. So is entertainment all there is for you for the days you have remaining? Perhaps the storm brewing will be entertainment enough for you today. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 ...And CUNTHOLE, who the fuck are you to claim I was answering for K? I was asking for me, not for him... Seems you've now decided to remove the gloves, which makes it a whole lot more entertaining, Christian... You link Gay and Promiscuous in this paragraph Of course gay marriage is an issue of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. Marital fidelity and promiscuity are issues of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. These are issues of concern to communities, to social workers, to legislators, and to conscientious parents and educators. Feel free to critique my interpretation of the data.... Clear implication of linkage... so, arsewipe...explain... Or are you going to lecture me again on my reading and retention skills? Seems that's all you're capable of, since the one time you took a clear stance it nearly buried you despite trying to retconn the history... GH, Actually, the grammatical link is between marital fidelity and its' logical converse, promiscuity. Gay marriage is addressed separately in a separate and concluded sentence. The placement in paragraph associates the two items with the referent, a non-exclusive association with Christianity. Windmill, GH. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 ...we'll leave that to the ages...To the ages it is then. Shall we find alternative entertainment to this game of battleship? Poor Dano is starting to drool, again.Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 ...Where I see the church being the Antichrist, it’s when they take you off the path of self-discovery into following their rules. At that point, you stop growing and become enslaved to the priests. How many pastors out there do you truly think have the answers for everyone, let alone themselves? That's a telling point, AM. I've known a number of pastors personally over the years, and they fall into two categories. Those who are humble enough to admit they are still in the process of discovery and those who are still in the process of discovery but are troubled that anyone might notice it. It's an unfortunate cultural dilemma; pastors are expected to know answers for the masses as are doctors and teachers and politicians. We're to the place with literacy and information access now so that patients are almost as insightful as their health care providers, students have as broad an exposure to information as their professors, and pastors are having a hard time keeping up. That’s a good analogy. Doctors are expected to be gods, and many carry that persona straight into their personalities and become arrogant asses. Pastors are looked to as leaders of culture, but the problem is hardly any are educated in areas of philosophy and sociology to really be equipped in that role. Historically when the church controlled society with a grip around what information was allowed to be available for public ingestion, the role as social leaders was simpler – they dictated what was acceptable belief, and then eliminated anything else through force. They only needed to understand acceptable doctrine. Today society is open and philosophies from the world over permeate our societies, so a pastor trying to teach the old traditions in a new world has a difficult task. Most pastors don’t even understand the sorts of questions people are asking, let alone have any sort of relevant answer. This is why you see the declared “war on cultureâ€, hoping to go to the government to push science out of the classroom in favor of religious instruction, blatantly guising itself as science in order to sneak in, trying to get prayer mandated in classroom in sneaky sideways efforts to promote make their jobs easier through the indoctrination of children. They can’t do what they once could so easily, so rather than educate themselves and try to make themselves relevant in the arena of ideas, they get political. Very telling indeed! The real question should be, are Pastors supposed to be social leaders? Why not simply be guides in a chosen religious philosophy, and let people who seek that out be the participants in a society as individuals? What makes a pastor qualified to be a social leader? Tradition? (We should probably differentiate between church, religion, and belief. They kind of get blurred in conversations like these. I don't consider myself religious, I wonder about organizations that call themselves churches but act like businesses, and I wonder what to do with 'believers' who have hope but no faith.) I’m quoting this to come back to. You do raise a good point. They do get all blurred together in conversation. Out of time for now… Alright, Antlerman. CHURCH AS ANTICHRIST. Here's your chance to expand on your earlier comments. For many of us, our society is no longer that of the small town or the geographical region. We've got threads and connections that span continents and oceans. "a pastor trying to teach the old traditions in a new world has a difficult task." Understatement of the year!! And, "are Pastors supposed to be social leaders?" That ought to contribute a bit to global warming. Plus, we need to do something by way of distinguishing between church, religion, and belief. Hope your weekend was more peaceful than mine. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Read the line again, if you don't mind. Of course gay marriage is an issue of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. Marital fidelity and promiscuity are issues of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. These are issues of concern to communities, to social workers, to legislators, and to conscientious parents and educators. Feel free to critique my interpretation of the data. Of course promiscuity is a concern, I didn't suggest that promiscuity was a good thing, what I said is that Fundamentalist say sex outside of marriage is ALWAYS wrong, the key being that only a fundamentalist paints things in black and white because they believe that marriage is some sacred event that involves promises made to god. Anyone else knows that things are more complicated than that. Again, I have yet to meet a single person who things gays should not be allowed to marry who without religious reasons....you keep spouting the same nonsense without backing it up with data...who are these people? can you provide me with a single article from anyone who is an atheist who thinks homosexual marriage should be forbidden? Its time to man up and actually back your claims up with facts...or admit you are wrong and shut up. My issue with data interpretation had to do with your claim that fundamentalists only number less than 100,000 just because that is the only people who call themselves that in a census. Also I did not even mention marital infidelity (adultery) but sex out side of marriage in general, which is simply not the same issue...stop putting words in my mouth. Fundamentalism is defined, and fundamentalists may be characterized by behaviors which are generally defined; your objections would benefit by your being informed a bit more before you publish. The imprecision with which you address some issues makes one wonder if you understand simple Christianity. That's pretty harsh, I know, but the things you suggest (as mandatory beliefs and behaviors for Christians) are unusual, to say the least.Buddy You know...try not to take offense but....FUCK YOU!!! I'm plenty well informed on the subject...it is you who apparently do not understand fundamentalist Christianity. I studied religion in college for years, I was also a leader in a campus ministry, studied the bible and prayed everyday...stop being such a pugnacious judgmental prick and acting like you know my whole life history from a few posts on a message board, it makes you come off as an ass. First off I did NOT suggest they were mandatory beliefs for ALL CHRISTIANS, but for FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS, I very carefully and deliberately made a distinction between the two. Also you claimed that fundamentalists had no political power in the United States and when I called bull shit on that claim you deftly ignored it, care to defend your claim or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Perhaps this is a good time to ask what YOU think about gay marriage, or teaching creationism in science classrooms...so on and so forth. No squirming out of it ok buddy? I think they are important questions because fundamentalist Christians would like to, and indeed ARE, trying to force everyone else in the country to do it their way on these issues, and there is, at least a possibility, of them making it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 ... I have yet to meet a single person who things gays should not be allowed to marry who without religious reasons. ... Good morning, K. I suspect as you suggest that the majority of vocal opponents to gay marriage will be speaking from a personal religious conviction. My contention, however, was that folks other than Christians were concerned about the issues you mentioned as the litmus test for fundamentalism. I think the concerns expressed go beyond some narrow religious context. Justice Martha Sosman (who wrote the dissenting opinion in the Massachusetts supreme court decision on same sex marriage) was opposed for reasons having to do with constitutional law, not religious objections. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Perhaps this is a good time to ask what YOU think about gay marriage, or teaching creationism in science classrooms...so on and so forth. No squirming out of it ok buddy? I think they are important questions because fundamentalist Christians would like to, and indeed ARE, trying to force everyone else in the country to do it their way on these issues, and there is, at least a possibility, of them making it happen. Sure thing. Tomorrow. It's late. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 ... I have yet to meet a single person who things gays should not be allowed to marry who without religious reasons. ... Good morning, K. I suspect as you suggest that the majority of vocal opponents to gay marriage will be speaking from a personal religious conviction. My contention, however, was that folks other than Christians were concerned about the issues you mentioned as the litmus test for fundamentalism. I think the concerns expressed go beyond some narrow religious context. Justice Martha Sosman (who wrote the dissenting opinion in the Massachusetts supreme court decision on same sex marriage) was opposed for reasons having to do with constitutional law, not religious objections. Buddy I did a little reading on Justice Sosman, and while it is true that she does not make any direct reference to religion in her arguments, most of her arguments are the same kind of tripe and a-priori assumptions found in fundamentalist literature about homosexuality. Fundamentalists aren't stupid, certainly not at that level of government, and have learned that direct appeal to religion isn't always working anymore, so they change tactics a bit. The did the same thing by changing "creation science" to "intelligent design." It is nothing more than a marketing gimick. I may be wrong and she isn't religious at all, but It seems to me she was most likely just a fundy who attempted to frame her ideas in secular ethics. Sure, other people are concerned about these issues, (hell, I'M concerned about these issues) but Fundies aren't just concerned , they also think they have all the answers (even when it has been shown that there answers don't work or aren't practical) and they also feel they have a god given duty to make sure everyone does it their way. Of course they don't have to be Christian fundies, for instance, Muslim fundies would also hold similar views, but they don't wield enough political power in this country...fundamentalist Christians DO. It is one thing to think homosexuality is morally wrong...it is quite another to think one has the right to force everyone else to believe it (or at least live as if they believed it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted September 24, 2007 Author Share Posted September 24, 2007 ...And CUNTHOLE, who the fuck are you to claim I was answering for K? I was asking for me, not for him... Seems you've now decided to remove the gloves, which makes it a whole lot more entertaining, Christian... You link Gay and Promiscuous in this paragraph Of course gay marriage is an issue of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. Marital fidelity and promiscuity are issues of concern to Christians, but not exclusively to them. These are issues of concern to communities, to social workers, to legislators, and to conscientious parents and educators. Feel free to critique my interpretation of the data.... Clear implication of linkage... so, arsewipe...explain... Or are you going to lecture me again on my reading and retention skills? Seems that's all you're capable of, since the one time you took a clear stance it nearly buried you despite trying to retconn the history... GH, Actually, the grammatical link is between marital fidelity and its' logical converse, promiscuity. Gay marriage is addressed separately in a separate and concluded sentence. The placement in paragraph associates the two items with the referent, a non-exclusive association with Christianity. Windmill, GH. Buddy So, we are going to discuss my comprehension skills... squirming bag of pus... Not playing... Why is Gay marriage a concern to non-bigoted individuals or followers of the cults of Abraham? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts