To the Christians here...

thaiboxerken said:
Yes, because it's an honest assessment. I also call huntster's belief that sasquatches exist moronic as well. Absurd beliefs are silly, whether it's gods, pixies, sasquatch or boogeymen. In short, I place religion in the same category as paranormal beliefs.
Click to expand...

I thought I left "It's not an insult if it's true" behind when I finished third grade. Your argument to that effect is a little reminiscent of AmyWilson.

It's true! :)
 
Huntster said:
Who does that? I've never heard of such.

I know folks who talk (type?) out of their rectums...................
(See sig lines below...................)
Click to expand...
Honestly. It's that hard to keep your fingers still? Feeble efforts indeed.
 
ceo, I am going to chicago for the weekend. We will continue this discussion on monday. ciao.
 
kurious_kathy said:
Well God tells us to test the spirits and see if they are from God. If we don't receive Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior, and ask Him to forgive us of our sins, then there really is no hope of ever being able to enter in heaven. Heaven is home for the forgiven and redeemed. Only those in Christ will enter.
"The only way to the Father is through the Son. And yes Jesus really does love us and hope we will all ask and receive His forgiveness.
Click to expand...
hi kathy,
I was not going to respond to your last comment, but did you write this somewhere before? Seems a little familiar. Oh well, it is a little more honest. I get this weird feeling sometimes that people wave the text equivalent of garlic and holy water at me, I did not want to just leave it without a response.

Testing the spirits to see 'if they are from God' is exactly the same as following our own feelings about something. If I may use an extreme example : When a lunatic 'tests the spirits', does his God give the same answer as your God does? So this reasoning seems flawed to me. If God communications with us it must be filtered by our own weaknesses, experience, and ability to understand; otherwise we would all be getting the same answers from testing these 'spirits'. Many people claim paradoxical things in his name. I sometimes wonder what purpose God's communicating with us would serve.
kathy:
"The only way to the Father is through the Son.
Click to expand...
'God:'
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
KJV John 14:6
Click to expand...
You you see, God's version is slightly different than yours. Paraphrasing does not really bother me that much unless it serves to create a false premise for what you believe. You see, there are MILLIONS of people who interpret 'Christ' as something that exists in a more or less timeless sense, and is something distinctly different than 'Jesus' a historic person. To their thinking, the Buddha or Muhammad might be a 'son of God', etc. Your paraphrase sort of prevents that understanding. I'm just pointing out that any passage can have thousands of meanings. So go watch 'O God', (the good version with George Burns.) :)
 
Last edited:
Kopji said:
You you see, God's version is slightly different than yours. Paraphrasing does not really bother me that much unless it serves to create a false premise for what you believe. You see, there are MILLIONS of people who interpret 'Christ' as something that exists in a more or less timeless sense, and is something distinctly different than 'Jesus' a historic person. To their thinking, the Buddha or Muhammad might be a 'son of God', etc. Your paraphrase sort of prevents that understanding.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're drawing between the source text and the paraphrase here.
 
ceo_esq said:
OK. I think Taste of Chicago kicks off this weekend; if you've never been you should try to catch it.
Click to expand...

Too many people... too many port-O-lets...

I am gonna have to take a rain-check on our debate ceo, I am working on my resume and I only have about seven weeks left before I plan to start submitting it to employers. I don't have time to check in here more than once a day anymore, and I can't keep up a discussion if my posts are that sparse.
 
ceo_esq said:
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're drawing between the source text and the paraphrase here.
Click to expand...

The difference is subtle but alternate readings tend to make people think the only possible interpretation is the more exclusive interpretation.

Humm, yeah ok. I suppose I could be getting carried away on insisting a key passage like that be quoted rather than paraphrased. I suppose that even her rendition would not prevent say, the Buddha from being considered a son of God (except for the capitalization of "Son" which seems to me changes the passage in a significant way).

The reading of the passage can be much more inclusive than kathy implied by her use of it.
 
rocketdodger said:
I am gonna have to take a rain-check on our debate ceo, I am working on my resume and I only have about seven weeks left before I plan to start submitting it to employers. I don't have time to check in here more than once a day anymore, and I can't keep up a discussion if my posts are that sparse.
Click to expand...

Well, good luck with that. Seven weeks should be enough to come up with a really polished resume that does the trick.
 
Kopji said:
The difference is subtle but alternate readings tend to make people think the only possible interpretation is the more exclusive interpretation.

Humm, yeah ok. I suppose I could be getting carried away on insisting a key passage like that be quoted rather than paraphrased. I suppose that even her rendition would not prevent say, the Buddha from being considered a son of God (except for the capitalization of "Son" which seems to me changes the passage in a significant way).

The reading of the passage can be much more inclusive than kathy implied by her use of it.
Click to expand...

I think the original (and by that I simply mean KJV) is arguably more restrictive - Jesus says that no one comes to the Father except by him specifically. Although "by me" has often been interpreted to mean that JC and his sacrifice are instrumental in mysterious ways even to the salvation of saved non-Christians (they just don't realize that the mechanism of their redemption was Jesus all along and not, for example, Buddha).
 
ceo_esq said:
I think the original (and by that I simply mean KJV) is arguably more restrictive - Jesus says that no one comes to the Father except by him specifically. Although "by me" has often been interpreted to mean that JC and his sacrifice are instrumental in mysterious ways even to the salvation of saved non-Christians (they just don't realize that the mechanism of their redemption was Jesus all along and not, for example, Buddha).
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm just trying out some abstract positions this week. Good exercise. :rolleyes: I'm doing better some places than others...

Kathy actually has a pretty defensible Christian pov. (and file it under 'Why I am not a Christian'). Your point is reasonable too. I think that if I could actually reconcile a more inclusive Christian view of the world I would be there by now. The 'wider' view of Christ is generally more Islamic than Christian or Buddhist.

Is is hard to experience the trauma that proselytizing involves and still see it as a good thing. Stories of the one convert in a family etc, gleefully recounted as the person is rejected and outcast into loving arms of their new religious family. Even the gospels acknowledge the sword in the Christian enterprise.

The result is not so much being anti religion as being kind of numb to it all. If I have an internal conflict, it is not hating the religious world, but feeling nothing.
 
Kopji said:
....Is is hard to experience the trauma that proselytizing involves and still see it as a good thing. Stories of the one convert in a family etc, gleefully recounted as the person is rejected and outcast into loving arms of their new religious family. Even the gospels acknowledge the sword in the Christian enterprise......
Click to expand...

Tough stuff, indeed.

Fortunately, I didn't have to experience it. I was born into a Christian family, married a beautiful Christian woman, raised our children Christian, and my children have found Christian mates.

And he spoke to them at length in parables, saying: "A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path, and birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky ground, where it had little soil. It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep, and when the sun rose it was scorched, and it withered for lack of roots. Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it. But some seed fell on rich soil, and produced fruit, a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold. Whoever has ears ought to hear."
Click to expand...

Matthew 13:3-9
 
Gospel of Thomas 16
"Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war. For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone."
Couretsy of wiki
Click to expand...

Indeed
 
rocketdodger said:
Elliot, grow up and stop using strawmen to make yourself out to be the victim. I have told you time and time again that I don't care if you accept my opinion, I just want you to form your own. In the last ten posts between us you have not given me a single explanation for anything besides brute fact put forth by the church.
Click to expand...

This is silly. The topic is the Church's stance on women priests. There are...two basic opinions about that. One opinion is yours, the Church's position is wrong. The other opinion is mine, the Church's position is correct.

Basically, the way you put this forth, there is only one *possible* opinion, a rejection of the Church's position. Because to have the opinion that the Church's position is wrong is to *not* have an opinion. I don't know if that falls under the auspices of logical thinking at the moment, but I don't care either. We're talking about a certain *thing*, and we each have an opinion about it.

No, I personally don't care at all. I think they all should ditch the club. I am having an argument with ceo about whether Christianity is inherently sexist.
Click to expand...

Many people believe that since God is exclusively? referred to in the masculine, and Jesus was a male, that there is nothing to argue about. That would be sexism inherent in the premises. Institutional sexism because of an all male hierarchy...maybe...not necessarily...I dunno.

Personally, I'll leave it up to each individual female to decide. If a woman is a Christian, and she insists that Christianity is not sexist, that's probably as valid as a woman who rejects Christianity because it is sexist, right?

-Elliot
 
RandFan said:
I'm on the records. Mormon's consider a Mormon to always be a Mormon unless and until an excomunication.
Click to expand...

An excommunication is one a divorced spouse contacts his/her better, I mean WORSE, cleaved half, right?

-Elliot
 
elliotfc said:
An excommunication is one a divorced spouse contacts his/her better, I mean WORSE, cleaved half, right?

-Elliot
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you didn't look it up.
Excommunication
ex·com·mu·ni·ca·tion Audio pronunciation of "excommunication" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ksk-myn-kshn)
n.

1. The act of excommunicating.
2. The state of being excommunicated.
3. A formal ecclesiastical censure that deprives a person of the right to belong to a church.
Click to expand...

ETA: Oh, I see, it was a lame joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom