Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Peanus, Err, Peanut Gallery For Checkmate's Cino


nivek

Recommended Posts

Hello!

 

It's the gorgeous and cuddly Mr Grinch ... :wub: (although not labelling you of course ;) )

 

How are you?!!! It's been awhile!

 

I don't like being pinned down with any LABELS. I am more than any one word can capture.

 

I bet if you asked one of our nice mods you could get that big A changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • R. S. Martin

    17

  • Grandpa Harley

    16

  • Deva

    15

  • Alice

    8

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Okay sorry. I thought you said you were envious. The universalists I am talking about didn't get excommunicated or burned at the stake or anything. In other words, they weren't "heretics." They were in the United States around 1800 as a legitimate church. Sure, the Calvinists saw them as heretics just as they do today. But the fundamentalists did not exist until a century later. That is why I get confused when exfundies charge Universalists with not being real Christians.

 

But I'm beginning to see that this is a seriously complicated and thorny issue. On another thread I was asked why exfundies can't charge Universalists with not being real Christians when people come in here charging us with not having been real christians.

 

Regarding my being envious, I said:

"But with respect, I say that this metaphorical understanding of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is the thing I just don't understand. I feel like beating my own head against a wall when I read this reinterpretation that has nothing to do with the historical Christian understanding. I admit I JUST DON'T GET IT, but am envious in a way, because if I could see the Christ event in the same way she does, I could go back to a liberal church and be OK, whereas now its a lonely life."

 

If I could subscribe to the creeds and statements of belief of even "liberal" denominations, I would go to one. Most of not all of them believe in or preach the atonement. I can't subscribe to it so I won't attend. If I could it would be better for my social life. That is all I meant.

 

I see. I misunderstood. Sorry.

 

Folks like Soj and the others can reinterpret, ignore or metaphorically twist somehow this doctrine where they are able to attend a church. So in that regard, I admit I am a bit envious of them, but only a bit.

 

I don't see how this is complicated, or why it is necessary to drag in the whole history of xianity. Most churches today, even liberal denominations, except the unitarian universalist church, have statements of belief their members are asked to subscribe to. There is a reason for this. There is a reason why Roman Catholics won't permit non-catholics to partake of the eucharist. It isn't complex. They want like-minded people with a common understanding of Christianity to be a part of their church.

 

Why bring in the whole history of Christianity? Because you want to claim what the meaning of Christian has always been. That indicates to me that you want to look at history. As I have stated, it is unfair to take history only back to the birth of fundamentalism and accuse the Universalists of not being real Christians when they have been around at least a century longer.

 

The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations posts its principles here. There are links to more detailed text for interested parties. Like the RCC and other groups, they have a central purpose for likeminded folk. You misunderstand what I refer to re complex.

 

On the page Beliefs within our church the UU say:

To quote the Rev. Marta Flanagan, "We uphold the free search for truth. We will not be bound by a statement of belief. We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed. We say ours is a non-creedal religion. Ours is a free faith."

My guess is if someone went in there trying to uphold RCC ritual or Pentecostal speaking in tongues, for example, they would get kicked out because they would not be upholding a "non-creedal religion." So far as I can see, that IS their creedal statement. And I can explain how it is based on the life and example of Jesus Christ. He ate with "sinners" and allowed a "sinful" woman to touch him. He had supper with a tax-collector and talked with a Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well. He healed the ill children and servants of non-Jewish people. He publicly rebuked his own religious leaders to their face, in front of the masses of common people, and when on trial by the Romans. Non-creedal and non-partisan would describe him.

 

Now that there are 3,000 different understandings of what it means to be a christian, the word becomes ever more nebulous.

 

The number floating around these forums is more like 34,000 denominations world wide. My NT prof said in first century AD the concept of Christian was far more varied than it is today. You can believe pretty much anything you want and call yourself a Christian if you want that label. I don't think any exChristian has a right to deny anyone that right. The churches have the power to deny membership to people who don't profess their creeds; that is as far as they can go. They can't keep anyone from calling themselves Christian. I think the only caveate should be that anyone claiming the name should be willing and prepared to explain why they claim the name. Even if they refuse such explanation no one can keep them from claiming the name on census forms or in the public square or street corner or wherever.

 

Even so, if I didn't believe in the atonement, the literal death, resurrection, etc. when I know the common understanding of people are that xians believe these things, is it completely honest for me to call myself an xian? Should I pretend I am one just to be thought provoking?

 

If you don't believe that the atonement can be seen as a metaphor for the Christ within, and for oneself to be reconciled with this Christ within, then you can probably not consider yourself a Christian. I personally could see the atonement this way but for me personally it is too much like being christian in name only. Why? Because I became reconciled to my Self through the approach of pscyhology and mental health. However, for people who came to it through the story of Christ, it is very deeply meaningful and I think it is wrong to take that away from them.

 

Noun1. Christ Within - a divine presence believed by Quakers to enlighten and guide the soulInner Light, Light Within, Lightethical motive, ethics, morals, morality - motivation based on ideas of right and wrongHere is a sermon about Mystery of Christ Within.

 

Confession: I did not know what was meant by the Christ within till I read this definition and sermon just now. I thought it meant feeling at peace with oneself. I still think that is what it is. I believe Christians got the Self mixed up with Christ. So they call part of their own psyche Christ and worship it. Talk about idolatry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Calvinists are wrong, because their God is a God who plays dice. Some will go to heaven others will go to hell and it depends on function random(). Bingo!

We are being accused for not being real Christians because we reject the concept of Hell.But in fact, I think we are the *real* Christians because we are closer to the early church. For example, Origen believed in Universal salvation and it was not considered to be a herecy until 5th century.

 

It's not random, it's predestination, laid down by the Trinity before the founding of the universe... it's Divine WILL you filthy, posing, apostate! Get with the program here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and as a Point of Order. Mr/Madam Speaker (aka Da Mods)... is it appropriate for a member of the Gladiatorial games to be posting in this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Waves a Green Big Foam Hand*

 

This thread needs beer and footdogs...

 

pizza.jpgbeer.jpghotdog.jpgpopcorn.jpgwings.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This comes from O_M's post # 12

 

But, hey, it makes one think, doesn't it???

The answer is NO.

 

 

If someone asks me, and I say, "I'm Christian" - then sometimes we have a discussion (like you and I are having now) and both of us are required to think - to get out of our respective boxes, are we not?

 

You cannot compare the type of thoughtful conversation you have between x-ians and non x-ians (like the one going on now) to interactions with the dominant culture (particularlly in America). That is NOT how the conversation happens.

 

If a christian asks you about your religion, and you say "I'm a christian" they do NOT in turn say "Oh? Which of the 35,000 kinds of christianity are you?" Get real. That is the kind of response you may get HERE, but in Real Life, the chirstian is satisfied by your answer and feels a smug kinship with you under the automatic assumption that you believe as they do. And they go on to discuss other things.

 

There is NO discussion on religion. It does not happen. Now...maybe well down the road...well....WELL down the road, they may asky you about an action you take that they view as "not-christian". You explain. They say "I see." (they don't really, they just don't want to discuss it, maybe they aren't in the mood to debate) And life resumes. No one is "made to think", no one is "challenged to look at new ideas".

 

It would be more honest to say you claim christianity because you DON'T want to get into those kinds of discussions in Real Life. You don't want to debate theology with the Baker when all you want is your jelly doughnut and to go peacefully on your way through life unaccosted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pulling the fact that they HAVE to have meetings on 'interfaith dialogue' between Christians indicates that it's usually ignored... thus the 'interfaith' ego frot is special event in the turd polishing calendar of the mindless zealots who try to pedal their insanity to masses... and what it a debeter doing responding to the Peanutters? Is this WWE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you read a book that teaches you something valid and important - but you diagree with some of the other things it says - then you discard the good things you learnt even though they were important and useful?

 

I've never understood this attitude some people seem to have that they are reluctant to pick things apart and sift the truth from the bullshit.

 

Devalight and Michael pretty much summed up my own feelings, but I just want to make certain you understand that I absolutely do pick everything apart.

 

I read tons of novels and all of those novels have elements of truth in them. The all contain opinions and thoughts and understandings from the authors. They all contain truth wrapped up in a fictitious story.

 

But nobody tells me that in order to glean truth from a Star Wars novel that I have to believe that Star Wars is a factual event a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

 

It is entirely fictional and I enjoy it as fiction. But it doesn't mean there isn't truths within the fictional elements.

 

To be a fundamentalist Xian than I have to take the ENTIRE Bible as FACT. I cannot do that.

 

To be a liberal Xian then it is up to me to decide what I want to take as fact and what I don't. I cannot do that either.

 

Here's a "truth" from the Bible that sums up my feelings on it:

 

Revelation 3:15-16

15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

 

I am "cold" towards Xianity and the Bible. Halfway (half-assed) just doesn't work for me. It's all or nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why bring in the whole history of Christianity? Because you want to claim what the meaning of Christian has always been. That indicates to me that you want to look at history. As I have stated, it is unfair to take history only back to the birth of fundamentalism and accuse the Universalists of not being real Christians when they have been around at least a century longer.

 

I never spoke of "taking history only back to the birth of fundamentalism." I am talking about Christianity as the average person on the street would understand it. And I will lay a bet it doesn't coincide with the views of the people presently posting on Checkmate's thread and calling themselves "Christians."

 

I made an exception of the Unitarians because their "Statement of Faith" has nothing to do with historic, creedal xianity of any accepted kind. To me, that is a kind of pseudo-church. I went to one for over a year. The only reason I did was because I had rejected all the xian doctrines I had previously held. Too bad it still had all the trappings of a church, or I would still be there.

 

I don't think any exChristian has a right to deny anyone that right.

 

It really isn't a question of "denying them the right." We still have a modicum of free speech in this country. But why the heck do we have to accept this peculiar, non-historical definition of "Christian"? To my way of thinking, in the modern age, not ignoring 2000 years of history (yes I concede your point that history does enter into it) someone that professes xianity and doesn't believe what the early church fathers, the Nicene Creed or any of the major tenants of that faith IS NOT A CHRISTIAN. Of course mostly I couldn't care less what type of labels people decide to give themselves, so long as they leave me alone.

 

If you don't believe that the atonement can be seen as a metaphor for the Christ within, and for oneself to be reconciled with this Christ within, then you can probably not consider yourself a Christian. I personally could see the atonement this way but for me personally it is too much like being christian in name only. Why? Because I became reconciled to my Self through the approach of pscyhology and mental health. However, for people who came to it through the story of Christ, it is very deeply meaningful and I think it is wrong to take that away from them.

 

No I don't see how the atonement is a metaphor for Christ within. I can't twist the story around to fit. The atonement was for sin, and I don't accept humanity as fallen, sinful and in need of the "atonement". I can't take anyone's personal understanding of anything away from them, no matter how peculiar, but sometimes I do feel like I would like to shake some sense into them. Generally I believe in minding my own business and not that of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

I am "cold" towards Xianity and the Bible. Halfway (half-assed) just doesn't work for me. It's all or nothing."

 

Remember the old saying, it is better to light a flame thrower than curse the darkness :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why bring in the whole history of Christianity? Because you want to claim what the meaning of Christian has always been. That indicates to me that you want to look at history. As I have stated, it is unfair to take history only back to the birth of fundamentalism and accuse the Universalists of not being real Christians when they have been around at least a century longer.

 

I never spoke of "taking history only back to the birth of the fundamentalism." I am talking about Christianity as the average person on the street would understand it. And I will lay a bet it doesn't coincide with the views of the people presently posting on Checkmate's thread and calling themselves "Christians."

 

I made an exception of the Unitarians because their "Statement of Faith" has nothing to do with historic, creedal xianity of any accepted kind. To me, that is a kind of pseudo-church. I went to one for over a year. The only reason I did was because I had rejected all the xian doctrines I had previously held. Too bad it still had all the trappings of a church, or I would still be there.

 

I don't think any exChristian has a right to deny anyone that right.

 

It really isn't a question of "denying them the right." We still have a modicum of free speech in this country. But why the heck do we have to accept this peculiar, non-historical definition of "Christian"? To my way of thinking, in the modern age, not ignoring 2000 years of history (yes I concede your point that history does enter into it) someone that professes xianity and doesn't believe what the early church fathers, the Nicene Creed or any of the major tenants of that faith IS NOT A CHRISTIAN. Of course mostly I couldn't care less what type of labels people decide to give themselves, so long as they leave me alone.

 

If you don't believe that the atonement can be seen as a metaphor for the Christ within, and for oneself to be reconciled with this Christ within, then you can probably not consider yourself a Christian. I personally could see the atonement this way but for me personally it is too much like being christian in name only. Why? Because I became reconciled to my Self through the approach of pscyhology and mental health. However, for people who came to it through the story of Christ, it is very deeply meaningful and I think it is wrong to take that away from them.

 

No I don't see how the atonement is a metaphor for Christ within. I can't twist the story around to fit. The atonement was for sin, and I don't accept humanity as fallen, sinful and in need of the "atonement". I can't take anyone's personal understanding of anything away from them, no matter how peculiar, but sometimes I do feel like I would like to shake some sense into them. Generally I believe in minding my own business and not that of others.

 

I think you may be using different semantics to broadly agree :)

 

Basically, we don't try to convert them, they should return the courtesy..

 

would that be the thrust of the matter, ladies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you may be using different semantics to broadly agree :)

 

Basically, we don't try to convert them, they should return the courtesy..

 

would that be the thrust of the matter, ladies?

 

Possibly. I would certainly agree with that statement. I just resent people coming in under cover of "I am a liberal xian" not believing a darn thing a Christian historically would believe and still ramming "Jesus" down our throats.

 

In this area, the namby-pamby, "reinterpret the metaphor to suit myself and still call it Jesus" crap just doesn't work. That's all I am saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I do too... I resent them turning up and basically claiming to be more 'Christian' than Eusebeius, while still embracing Origen and Irenaeus in a closeted sordid menage a trois...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem understanding why someone might approach the Bible and use their own discernment to figure out which bits are from God and which bits are from man. (I don't believe in God myself, but I understand why someone who does believe in God might take that approach). If someone tries to discern which bits of the Bible are true and which bits are false - and then finds a lot of truth in the whole person of Jesus, his message and in the metaphor of crucifixion and resurrection (a metaphor can be truth) - then why can't that person call themselves a christian? A christian is a follower of Christ. That is what the word means.

 

<snip>

 

Very foolish to reject something totally just because you disagree with some of it.

 

Excellent post! I agree with practically every word you say. I wish I had seen it before I wrote all my lengthy ones. I could have just referred people to it. No exfundy believes that people must adhere to all the laws in Leviticus, etc., in order to be Christian so it makes no sense that they must adhere to all the rules their former church preached in order to be Christian. Exfundies are picking and choosing as it is. Who gets to say who qualifies to decide exactly WHAT makes a real Christianâ„¢?

 

Truth be told, all of the fundy churches people here think are true believerâ„¢ are schtedlaâ„¢ from the Old Order Mennonite perspective. That is our PA German word for worldly people, the people who don't dress plainly. Since we didn't know any unbelievers we assumed everybody who didn't dress plainly was "the world" that was on the broad road to hell as in the poem The Church Walking with the World. See also "...the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.... As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world." John 17:14-18.

 

Unlike the plain people, mainstream fundy churches make up their portion of big business and financial institutions, lawmakers, the police, army, and government, etc. It is just as easy for me to accept that your fundy churches are going to heaven (real Christiansâ„¢) as it is for me to believe that the liberal churches are going to heaven (real Christiansâ„¢). From an outsider's perspective they all appear to dress and live and believe the same.

 

After reading these forums for sixteen months I am beginning to get some inkling of an idea on how mainstream fundamentalists think they are distinct from the world, but I'm still scratching my head. This thread is perhaps the clearest I have yet seen. But frankly, it makes no sense, not given my background. And I don't want anyone discounting my experience at this point by saying my situation is exteme because it's not. There's tens of thousands of us in North America, not to mention tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of others beyond. It's normal! for us. For Victorian and pre-Victorian. And most people in the world today live below the standard of my people.

 

Real Christianâ„¢ does not equal upper middle class 21st century American culture, whether fundamentalist or liberal--that is my point. It probably does to the person who came from there (and there's quite a number) but not to anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pulling the fact that they HAVE to have meetings on 'interfaith dialogue' between Christians indicates that it's usually ignored... thus the 'interfaith' ego frot is special event in the turd polishing calendar of the mindless zealots who try to pedal their insanity to masses... and what it a debeter doing responding to the Peanutters? Is this WWE?

 

If you look at the top of that post you will see that it was taken from the debate and posted here for discussion. This is the Peanut Gallery, after all, so we can discuss the debate. We just happened to get into our own private debate. But discussing the debate is legit I understand. The debater did not post in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be a liberal Xian then it is up to me to decide what I want to take as fact and what I don't.

 

GG, I didn't know you were talking about fact. This is not the way liberal Christianity decides about fact. Liberal Christianity uses science to decide the facts in the Bible. Whether or not much of the OT is myth is not just a "belief" liberal Christians choose to believe; it's a fact as solid as the Egyptian pyramids. Exactly how much is myth has not been definitively determinted because the evidence is not easy to come by.

 

However, we need to differentiate between fact and theology. Fact, as in historical fact, is one thing. Theology as in what we believe about God is quite another. Fundamentalists try to mix the two together and bake them into one solid cookie. But the cookie crumbles when science proves the Bible wrong.

 

But there's stuff that science cannot touch. Feelings and beliefs about God cannot be touched by science. That is the stuff theology is made of. So I understand it. There's not too much fact in that but there is logic and philosophy.

 

If that theory is too abstract to make sense in someone's brain, don't worry. There is no hell for any of us to go to. That's a fact. So I believe.

 

Liberal Christians might say, "God is what you think him to be." Whereas fundamentalists will claim to know for a fact who and what God is.

 

I think there is NO evidence for the fundamentalist God. I think there is some questionable evidence for the mystical God. Liberal Christians can probably choose their god from among the world's spiritualities, which is what I did, even though I belonged to a very strict church. My church never told me that I couldn't do it and I never told them what I was doing in my heart of hearts. They told me I had to believe, so I did what I could to do as they told me.

 

I now believe that this "evidence" for the mystical God is nothing but consequences of the human psyche. There seems to be scientific evidence to prove this. People like Soj tend to take huge offense at such suggestions and I understand why. They have invested much in their visions and religion. Social networks and family ties may depend on it. For some of us, truth and personal integrity is more important than any of these but some people are not strong enough to take such a stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graphicsguy, I have now read through all the posts in the debate and I can see where you get the idea that liberal Christians just choose what they want to believe. In a sense I may have responded prematurely. OM said in a quote in Post 15:

 

Very early I had to make a decision for myself whether Jesus really did live, really did die on the cross, etc... Since I had studied - in depth - the archealogical history of the New Testament I've known for years that an objective person could look at the New Testament stories and go many ways. They could be written off as an oral tradition of stories, not fact. They could be accepted as literal - and one could write off the archealogy. Or they could be viewed as an oral tradition around a concrete figure in history named Jesus.

 

I chose the third option. In my mind Jesus did live and he did die on the cross.

 

She is here dealing with an aspect of the Bible that mainstream scholars have not yet agreed is myth. I think it may happen in the next generation or two but probably not in this generation. I am not sure why she felt she had to decide but she did.

 

OM in Post 16:

 

OK - White Raven - to review - I thought this was pretty common knowledge - but I guess not....

 

I'm involved in interfaith dialog, my name is commonly associated with interfaith dialog in my local community. Not just my own suburb but also in the larger metro area's paper. So.... when I get into discussions with fellow Christians it is most often about interfaith dialog. And - yes - there is a discussion about my beliefs as compared to theirs.

 

She must be on some kind of committee or board or association that does formal meetings with other church leaders. This would be lots heavier dialogue than you and me happening to meet in the grocery store and comparing notes from our church service on Sunday--you maybe Anglican and me Mennonite, or whatever.

On to Sojourner, Post 17:

 

I dont understand why you would want me to not use that label here and if I understand you , you are inferring it would help communication since I dont seem to meet certain qualifications to bear the name. But to me it would be dishonest and even if it did inhibit our conversations some and have me seem your enemy or an undesirable, at least Ive been honest and been me as best I can.

 

I think we all accept that Sojourner believes she has valid reasons for using the name Christian on these forums. What we would like to know is her reason for thinking she is a Christian. She does not address that question. She only defends her reasons for using it.

 

She also keeps defending her sincerity, as though that were part of Checkmate's question, and I see no reference to such an item. Others (including myself) have challenged her sincerity but I don't think Checkmate was part of that conversation. Methinks the lady protests too much. She was not called by name into this discussion but she arrived. And now that she is here she brings up all kinds of issues she has encountered on the forums, or that she imagines that people may hold against her. But she avoids the issue for which she responded.

 

Those are some of my observations, now that I've caught up with the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graphicsguy, I have now read through all the posts in the debate and I can see where you get the idea that liberal Christians just choose what they want to believe.

 

Honestly, Ruby, I didn't get the idea from *them* so much as from any liberal Xian I've talked to. My own mother even.

 

To me with Genesis disproven then the necessity for salvation from original sin is gone. To me that makes the entire Bible a work of fiction.

 

If someone wants to read it for philosophical value just as I do with novels, then go for it. I think it's dull, dry, and a yawner.

 

I'm not trying to argue with you or anyone else in the thread, just stating my opinion that this type of belief just doesn't work for me because...I don't get it. I don't see the point in it.

 

BTW, until a few days ago I didn't even realize that sojourner did call herself a Xian so it's just been interesting overall. If anyone wants to believe, good for them...I just don't think I will ever understand the "why" of the Liberal viewpoint.

 

Maybe I don't really care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No exfundy believes that people must adhere to all the laws in Leviticus, etc., in order to be Christian so it makes no sense that they must adhere to all the rules their former church preached in order to be Christian. Exfundies are picking and choosing as it is. Who gets to say who qualifies to decide exactly WHAT makes a real Christianâ„¢?

 

There was an orthodox church known as the Catholic Church (Now the Roman Catholic church) which existed unbroken and undivided for 1,000 years. They could and they did decide who were "real christians." Since the church is now hopelessly divided, each individual denomination makes that decision.

 

To me, this has nothing to do with "ex-fundies" and whether or not they adhere to some obscure rules in Leviticus. Pardon me, but this has gone so far afield. It has everything to do with what Checkmate said:

 

So the question (rant?) of the day is: WHY BOTHER TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A “CHRISTIAN,” WHEN IT’S SO PAINFULLY OBVIOUS THAT YOU AREN’T ONE?!?!?

 

No one here is demanding that you become an atheist, just please stop the silly pretense of calling yourself “Christian.” It’s disingenuous and a bald-faced lie.

 

It’s also self-deprecating. The fact that you disagree with and reject Christian doctrines is a testament to your decency, goodness and un-common sense. Why, then slander/libel yourself with the insulting label of cretin/Christian? Why debase your good name by identifying yourself with a brain dead, religious cult? You’re obviously much better than that.

 

Ruby said:

Real Christianâ„¢ does not equal upper middle class 21st century American culture, whether fundamentalist or liberal--that is my point. It probably does to the person who came from there (and there's quite a number) but not to anyone else.

 

Agreed. It does not equal 21st century American culture. But that's not the point. I am simply saying and insisting that these folks are calling themselves Christian contrary to every accepted historical definition of that word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pulling the fact that they HAVE to have meetings on 'interfaith dialogue' between Christians indicates that it's usually ignored... thus the 'interfaith' ego frot is special event in the turd polishing calendar of the mindless zealots who try to pedal their insanity to masses... and what it a debeter doing responding to the Peanutters? Is this WWE?

 

If you look at the top of that post you will see that it was taken from the debate and posted here for discussion. This is the Peanut Gallery, after all, so we can discuss the debate. We just happened to get into our own private debate. But discussing the debate is legit I understand. The debater did not post in here.

 

Actually, The Grinch has already broken the 4th wall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheesh, the only two xians to answer Grinch are the two most open-minded xians on the forum. True™ xians are such pussies. If they didn't already know their beliefs are indefensible they wouldn't be so shy about defending their faith against a real challenge like Grinch gave them. The silence speaks volumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem understanding why someone might approach the Bible and use their own discernment to figure out which bits are from God and which bits are from man.

 

I think this is reasonable. The part that I find unreasonable about liberal xians is the fact that they find enough sollace in the bible and in the xian theme that they go so far as to adopt the label. I'm sure you can find bits of wisdom here and there, but so many other works offer so much more.

 

I hate to be repetative, but I can list just off the top of my head 5 or 6 writers that are oodles more inspired than the biblical writers ever hoped to be. If all you are doing is looking for a hopeful theme to live your life around, hy doesn't one call one's self a Thoreauean? A Pirsigian? An Emersonean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheesh, the only two xians to answer Grinch are the two most open-minded xians on the forum. True xians are such pussies. If they didn't already know their beliefs are indefensible they wouldn't be so shy about defending their faith against a real challenge like Grinch gave them. The silence speaks volumes.

 

I think the point is that they are 'Christian' in name only... after all they manage to remove the pillars of dogma that make Christianity anything more than a warm, fluffy feel good happy clappy thing...

 

In fact, their version of 'Christianity' has no reason for the Crucifixion... since there was no original sin, no hell for Christ to be condemned to after the Crucifixion and the resurrection as a symbol of redemption as resoundingly empty as the space between the stars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pulling the fact that they HAVE to have meetings on 'interfaith dialogue' between Christians indicates that it's usually ignored... thus the 'interfaith' ego frot is special event in the turd polishing calendar of the mindless zealots who try to pedal their insanity to masses... and what it a debeter doing responding to the Peanutters? Is this WWE?

 

If you look at the top of that post you will see that it was taken from the debate and posted here for discussion. This is the Peanut Gallery, after all, so we can discuss the debate. We just happened to get into our own private debate. But discussing the debate is legit I understand. The debater did not post in here.

 

Actually, The Grinch has already broken the 4th wall

 

Oh yeah, right. Not sure why that is allowed. Maybe special priviledges to real old-timers? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graphicsguy, I have now read through all the posts in the debate and I can see where you get the idea that liberal Christians just choose what they want to believe.

 

Honestly, Ruby, I didn't get the idea from *them* so much as from any liberal Xian I've talked to. My own mother even.

 

To me with Genesis disproven then the necessity for salvation from original sin is gone. To me that makes the entire Bible a work of fiction.

 

If someone wants to read it for philosophical value just as I do with novels, then go for it. I think it's dull, dry, and a yawner.

 

I'm not trying to argue with you or anyone else in the thread, just stating my opinion that this type of belief just doesn't work for me because...I don't get it. I don't see the point in it.

 

BTW, until a few days ago I didn't even realize that sojourner did call herself a Xian so it's just been interesting overall. If anyone wants to believe, good for them...I just don't think I will ever understand the "why" of the Liberal viewpoint.

 

Maybe I don't really care?

 

Fine with me if you don't care. I felt I had made an argument against you, and then I discovered perhaps I had done it prematurely. So I figured I owed some kind of acknowledgment at the very least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.