Christianity vs Paulianity

[TABA]

5 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Ok, Rank I stand corrected. Did they also refer to them as ears of corn? That is very confusing to me having always used the American terminology.

Yes they did.  Ya think I wasn’t confused when I moved clear across the pond at the age of 21!  I would just caution any young Irish engineer coming to the US to NOT ask the office secretary if they can borrow a rubber. And especially don’t promise to bring it back when you’re done with it. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

 

That does seem to be the way it goes, but it is possible to have discussion with people stating their views, and then agreeing to disagree when getting deadlocked.  Would we perhaps have a better image in the eyes of guests if we operated in that manner??  And perhaps draw in some who are searching for truth, rather than just coming here to lambast the heritics??  And getting lambasted in return.

 

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

 And it's telling that some here insist on debate... in a venue where Christians are subject to numerous and arbitrary safe-space restrictions.

I'm of the opinion that if you take beer into an AA meeting, you really should expect some blowback.  I'm not sure why someone would feel entitled to "honest discussion" on the virtues of drinking beer at an AA meeting; or why an active beer drinker would expect to be treated on an equal footing by people in recovery at the AA meeting.  I'm certainly not going to "agree to disagree" with someone trying to drink beer at the AA meeting, especially not if I'm the guy chairing the meeting.  The responsibility clause extends to more than just helping those who need it; it also implies the responsibility of protecting those still new in the program.

 

It baffles me why both of you fine gentleman pretend not to understand this when it comes to exposing new deconverts to christian concepts and beliefs. 

 

Christians have a place on this website for discussing and/or debating their beliefs.  It's the Lion's Den.  Everywhere else is a safe space.  No one arbitrarily restricts you in the Den.  If you tend to lose most of the time, it might be because your arguments just aren't that good.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

27 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

  If you tend to lose most of the time, it might be because your arguments just aren't that good.  

Backing off from an argument is NOT the same as losing the argument.  Sometimes it is the prudent thing to do.  Winning a skirmish in a war may actually be wasting energy that could be used in better ways to win the overall war.  And even this analogy is a poor one, because, at least in my mind, we are not at war here.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

12 minutes ago, Weezer said:

we are not at war here.  

That isn't always true. Some Christian come here poised to Fight the good fight for the Lord. Believing they are fighting that spiritual warfare spoken of in the bible. 

 

DB

[◊ Weezer ◊]

44 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

That isn't always true. Some Christian come here poised to Fight the good fight for the Lord. Believing they are fighting that spiritual warfare spoken of in the bible. 

 

DB

And when we join them in the war, we get down on their level.  Aren't we trying to rise above that??

[RankStranger]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

I'm of the opinion that if you take beer into an AA meeting, you really should expect some blowback.  I'm not sure why someone would feel entitled to "honest discussion" on the virtues of drinking beer at an AA meeting; or why an active beer drinker would expect to be treated on an equal footing by people in recovery at the AA meeting.  I'm certainly not going to "agree to disagree" with someone trying to drink beer at the AA meeting, especially not if I'm the guy chairing the meeting.  The responsibility clause extends to more than just helping those who need it; it also implies the responsibility of protecting those still new in the program.

 

It baffles me why both of you fine gentleman pretend not to understand this when it comes to exposing new deconverts to christian concepts and beliefs. 

 

Christians have a place on this website for discussing and/or debating their beliefs.  It's the Lion's Den.  Everywhere else is a safe space.  No one arbitrarily restricts you in the Den.  If you tend to lose most of the time, it might be because your arguments just aren't that good.  

 

Thanks for confirming that we're on the same page Professor.  Ya'll have every right to your numerous and arbitrary safe-space restrictions.  I know we Christians are a fearsome bunch. 

 

Let's just not pretend that a discussion policed by dedicated religious bigots is open and honest.  

 

 

Now @walterpthefirst

 

Care to explain why I should debate you in a safe-space where debate is explicitly not welcome from my kind?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

Backing off from an argument is NOT the same as losing the argument.  Sometimes it is the prudent thing to do.  Winning a skirmish in a war may actually be wasting energy that could be used in better ways to win the overall war.  And even this analogy is a poor one, because, at least in my mind, we are not at war here.  

 

Christians and X-Christians are a lot alike.  Large subsets of both think we're at war.  I haven't expressed anything of the sort.

 

I used to think that a winning debate was some kind of proxy for truth.  Seems a little short-sighted these days.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

8 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

used to think that a winning debate was some kind of proxy for truth.  Seems a little short-sighted these days.

Ok so let's get back to the topic you started. We've all given some replies. What is your stance as a Christian on the prospect of Christianity vs Paulanity?

 

DB

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Care to explain why I should debate you in a safe-space where debate is explicitly not welcome from my kind? 

Point of clarification: the Lion's Den was created specifically to welcome debate explicitly from your kind.  It is not intended to be a safe-space.  Not sure why you're still confused about this after all these years; but I'm always happy to lend help and clarification where I can.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Point of clarification: the Lion's Den was created specifically to welcome debate explicitly from your kind.  It is not intended to be a safe-space.  Not sure why you're still confused about this after all these years; but I'm always happy to lend help and clarification where I can.

I'm betting he had his fair share of things to say to Christians back before he gave in to his former programming. 

 

DB

[RankStranger]

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Point of clarification: the Lion's Den was created specifically to welcome debate explicitly from your kind.  It is not intended to be a safe-space.  Not sure why you're still confused about this after all these years; but I'm always happy to lend help and clarification where I can.

 

I'm not confused at all, though you seem to be having a bit of trouble following.

 

Our of respect for your arbitrary and bigoted safe-space rules, I explicitly made this thread a discussion.  Not a debate.

 

You might want to clear this up with Walter.  Thanks and god bless 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

5 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

I explicitly made this thread a discussion.  Not a debate.

I have been trying to discuss this with you because it is a topic of interest for me. And as far as the topic it has been a one sided discussion. Could you bless me with your stance on the matter?

 

DB

[RankStranger]

11 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Ok so let's get back to the topic you started. We've all given some replies. What is your stance as a Christian on the prospect of Christianity vs Paulanity?

 

DB

 

I don't really have a stance on this.  It's something I've been interested in and curious about, hence this discussion.

 

I do tend to give Jesus's teachings far more weight than Paul's.  Jesus is gospel.  Paul is history.

 

I don't know if any denominations have explicit doctrines along those lines... I kinda doubt it.  But it seems pretty common in practice (if not in doctrine) among more progressive Christians.  I don't know yet if it's just a strategy to be more inclusive to homosexuals, of if there's more behind the sentiment than that.

 

Hence a discussion with smart people whose opinions I find interesting.

 

And Walter 

 

 

4 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I'm betting he had his fair share of things to say to Christians back before he gave in to his former programming. 

 

DB

 

Yes I did, and it's all right here on the site.  Well, all of it since 2005 or so.

 

Hell I've debated my former self here more than once.

[walterpthefirst]

Now @walterpthefirst

 

Care to explain why I should debate you in a safe-space where debate is explicitly not welcome from my kind?  

 

 

 

I've already acknowledged that debate doesn't happen here, when I replied to Weezer.

 

First, this isn't a specified debate area of the forum.  So RS might well be just asking for a discussion.

Second, and to answer your question, I'm of the opinion that the aim of this forum (helping people to exit Christianity) is best served by the directness of debate, where direct questions can be put to Christians and where the flaws and misunderstandings in their beliefs are most easily exposed.  A discussion might throw up the odd moment where a Christian's beliefs comes under scrutiny but for the most part discussions don't advance the aim of this forum very much.  So no, everything doesn't have to be a debate that someone can win, Weezer.

 

 

My first point was an acknowledgment that debate takes place elsewhere.  My second point is where I opine that this forum is better served by debate than by discussion.  It wasn't a call for you to debate me in the designated debate areas.  Then, 4 hours ago I wrote about the difference between the four Gospels and Paul's gospel, starting off my post like this...

 

 

If we're going to discuss Christianity vs Paulianity then I'd like to make the comment...

 

 

Taken together these posts clearly show that while I'm of the opinion that this forum is better served by debate, in this area and in this thread we are not debating but discussing.  Hopefully, with that clarification we can now get back to the discussion.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

Backing off from an argument is NOT the same as losing the argument.  Sometimes it is the prudent thing to do.  Winning a skirmish in a war may actually be wasting energy that could be used in better ways to win the overall war.  And even this analogy is a poor one, because, at least in my mind, we are not at war here.  

 

How does backing off from an argument serve the people who are observing the argument, Weezer?

 

If a Christian asserts something and that goes unchallenged by us, when we could show the error of that assertion, how does our backing off serve the very people this forum is meant to help?

 

All those hurting and injured people will see is a Christian asserting things unchallenged.

 

You and I will probably disagree, but in my opinion there's a higher calling involved here.

 

The mental and emotional wellbeing of those people who look to us to serve them by showing the falsity of Christianity.

 

And exposing that falsity usually means challenging and if necessary also arguing.

 

 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

37 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

How does backing off from an argument serve the people who are observing the argument, Weezer?

 

I DID NOT SAY AVOIDING AN ARGUMENT!!    But when both sides have made their point, and before it goes off on tangents, and ego and emotions get involved in winning, Why not save your energy and walk away??  Unless you have nothing better to do with your time.

[walterpthefirst]

It seems that the point of contention between us Weezer is a matter of degree.

 

When to stop.

 

Or rather, knowing when to stop.

 

I freely concede that I've a lot to learn in that regard.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

I do tend to give Jesus's teachings far more weight than Paul's.  Jesus is gospel.  Paul is history.

 

 

Could you please tell us how you arrived at this dichotomy, RS?

 

Is the weighting influenced by your belief that Jesus is god but Paul was just a man?

 

Or is there some emotional factor at work here because Jesus died for you whereas Paul did not?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

35 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Could you please tell us how you arrived at this dichotomy, RS?

 

I have the same question.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

 

I don't know if any denominations have explicit doctrines along those lines... I kinda doubt it.  But it seems pretty common in practice (if not in doctrine) among more progressive Christians.  I don't know yet if it's just a strategy to be more inclusive to homosexuals, of if there's more behind the sentiment than that.

Hmm, I don't understand. It is obvious that Jesus is pro-mosaic law. I don't see that reflected in progressive Christianity.

 

So what I see is What we were talking about before. "CHERRY PICKING". Progressive Christian seem to take the scriptures above from Paul saying that we are no longer under the law but under grace through faith in Jesus. Mix a little God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentence, and a pinch of For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life. 

 

See God loves everyone, He loves the homosexuals, the pan sexuals, those that give children up for abortion, just believe on Jesus because God loves you..... 

 

Nah.. that wasn't Jesus. He believed in the law, he was sinless through the law, and would never have condoned homosexuality. 

 

I don't know what the progressive Christians got going on. But it isn't biblical. I don't see how you can say in practice the progressives are more in tune with Jesus. Thats.... really hilarious. I'm sure they think they are closer just like any denomination thinks they are closer. But there is SOOOOO much bible you have to just chunk out the window.

 

The ruthless God of the old testament said he was the Lord thy God and he changed not. 

 

That is another reason that Paul changing the criteria for the law doesn't fit.

 

Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away until all be fulfilled. By all being fulfilled he wasn't talking about his death and resurrection. He was an apocalyptic Jew. He taught an Apocalyptic message. He was talking about God coming with his kingdom. Because when God came with his kingdom he would destroy wickedness and there would be no need for the law. 

 

God said he doesn't change. 

 

Progressive Christianity is a new thing. I don't think they "Got it right" 2000 years after Jesus. 

 

While progressive Christians like yourself are far more tolerable, less toxic, and accepting which I like. Don't fool yourself into thinking that that is what Jesus intended. 

 

You know enough to know better than that. 

 

DB

[RankStranger]

51 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

I do tend to give Jesus's teachings far more weight than Paul's.  Jesus is gospel.  Paul is history.

 

 

Could you please tell us how you arrived at this dichotomy, RS?

 

Is the weighting influenced by your belief that Jesus is god but Paul was just a man?

 

Or is there some emotional factor at work here because Jesus died for you whereas Paul did not?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

There are plenty of emotions involved.  But yeah, Paul ain't God.  Jesus is.  There are instances where I think Paul's teachings are used cynically by Christians, in violation of the spirit (though not necessarily the letter) of Jesus's teachings.  Jesus's teachings would have to take precedence over those of Paul, if there is a conflict.

 

The problem I have as a Christian is that I understand there is a long and not-so-magical history behind the Bible as it currently exists.  I can't un-know that, any more than I can un-know the scientifical stuff I know.

 

I

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

And when we join them in the war, we get down on their level.  Aren't we trying to rise above that??

 

I will probably wage war against toxic fundamentalism till I die. 

 

I am about to start fighting in front of my son against my family. I won't have him and his boyfriend shunned from family gathering because someone's faith or prejudices affect their love for my son. 

 

I will do the same for my daughter.

 

And here I will do my best to refute any Christian BS that comes through to make sure those who are confused, newly deconverted, or are suffering from religious trauma have a safe space and know more seasoned members will do their best to keep it that way and fight against apologetics from Christians when they can't and are susceptible. 

 

The work we do here is good. I've seen several very trouble people come here and overcome. Some that are still in the process and going through troubles as you know. We are here for them. Not Christians that would seek to bring them back to the fold. 

 

DB

[◊ Weezer ◊]

17 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

And here I will do my best to refute any Christian BS that comes through to make sure those who are confused, newly deconverted, or are suffering from religious trauma have a safe space and know more seasoned members will do their best to keep it that way and fight against apologetics from Christians when they can't and are susceptible. 

 

I understand that.  And we are getting into semantics regarding “war.”  War evokes high emotions, and with high emotions, rationality can fly out the window.  That’s my concern here. 

[walterpthefirst]

12 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

There are plenty of emotions involved.  But yeah, Paul ain't God.  Jesus is.  There are instances where I think Paul's teachings are used cynically by Christians, in violation of the spirit (though not necessarily the letter) of Jesus's teachings.  Jesus's teachings would have to take precedence over those of Paul, if there is a conflict.

 

The problem I have as a Christian is that I understand there is a long and not-so-magical history behind the Bible as it currently exists.  I can't un-know that, any more than I can un-know the scientifical stuff I know.

 

 

Ok RS, you've confirmed what Weezer and I were asking about, that there is a dichotomy in your thinking regarding Jesus and Paul.

 

 

But yeah, Paul ain't God.  Jesus is. 

 

 

But your confirmation doesn't tell us how you arrived at this dichotomy.

 

Could you please explain the how?

 

All that we can glean from what you've said so far is that you might have arrived at this dichotomy by faith.

 

And even then we would be guessing.

 

Or you could have arrived at it for emotional reasons.

 

Could you please be more specific about your thinking?

 

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

13 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

There are plenty of emotions involved.  But yeah, Paul ain't God.  Jesus is.  There are instances where I think Paul's teachings are used cynically by Christians, in violation of the spirit (though not necessarily the letter) of Jesus's teachings.  Jesus's teachings would have to take precedence over those of Paul, if there is a conflict.

 

The problem I have as a Christian is that I understand there is a long and not-so-magical history behind the Bible as it currently exists.  I can't un-know that, any more than I can un-know the scientifical stuff I know.

 

I

 

 

 

Maybe I'm jumping into "debate" too quickly. But I have trouble "discussing" something with someone who is being so vague in their dialog.  I find this frustrating with you and Ed both. Starting topics, not responding, and if you do its just some short generic 3 sentence reply. 

 

So, I'm going to back up. obviously, you don't see the teachings of Jesus vs the Teachings of Paul like I do. I don't know if that's because i'm better versed in the bible or if it is just your new way of looking at things so you can have faith.

 

So, lets discuss why you feel the teachings of Jesus are reflected in practice in Progressive Christianity as opposed to the fundamental churches you grew up in. Is this an opinion or is it actually based on something substantial? 

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

12 hours ago, Weezer said:

I understand that.  And we are getting into semantics regarding “war.”  War evokes high emotions, and with high emotions, rationality can fly out the window.  That’s my concern here. 

 

I'm 100% with DarkBishop when it comes to waging war with toxic fundamentalism.

 

But I'm also trying to pay heed to Weezer's call for rationality.

 

Finding some kind of middle ground here is currently difficult for me.

 

 

 

Edit.

I'm also agreement with what DB has just written about the vagueness of Christian replies.  Vagueness sometimes bordering on evasiveness.  To give them the benefit of the doubt, this could just be a function of lack of rigorous thought and analysis.  But how are we to know that?  To our knowing Ex-Christian eyes this could look like deliberate evasiveness, because we were once in the same place - evading difficult questions because we wanted to hold on to our faith more than we wanted to be honest.