|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First) |
Jan 13th, 2006 05:33 PM | ||||||
kahljorn |
I'm sure he'd be quite satisfied with corporatation Christianity. I'm sure he'd also be quite satisfied to see that the world hasn't changed much since he's been here, despite his teachings and "Sacrafice". |
|||||
Jan 13th, 2006 05:21 PM | ||||||
ziggytrix |
I would agree that obnoxious "Christians" tarnish the image of Christianity in general. I'm also so cynical that I think a lot of people, especially in politics, would go around saying Hare Krishna at the end of their speeches if the majority of Americans were Krishnas. As for what Jesus would think of modern Christianity, there is no way of knowing that, it's a personal faith issue. I believe Jesus would reenact the moneychangers in the temple scene, but that's just me. |
|||||
Jan 13th, 2006 04:38 PM | ||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Jesus did talk about a lot of stuff that we should do, but don't be mistaken in thinking that it was in order to make this planet a better, nicer, safer, and happier place. He told us how to behave, because he was interested in our souls, not the planet earth. For example, see Matthew 25:41-46. We don't exhibit charity simply for the poor, but rather, we exhinit charity for ourselves. It's not just right to feed a hungry man because he's hungry, it's also right because our very life depends on it. So say what you want about salvation and damnation, but it's all tied in there. I realize you aren't a Christian, so frankly, you have the luxury to pick and choose whatever you like from the New Testament. Quote:
|
|||||
Jan 13th, 2006 10:03 AM | ||||||
mburbank |
"Christianity wouldn't be what it is today without the works of Paul." I know. I favor the Gospel of Thomas. While there's plenty of room for disagreement, I don't think Jesus would even recognize the church today, and probably would have stopped recognizing around the time of the Nicean Creed, when the doctrine of salvation surpassed The sermon on the Mount (or wherever) in importance. "Then we should dismiss ALL scripture references from this conversation, there are a lot of biblical scholars who think the entire Bible is bullshit, so we probably shouldn't be citing the Bible to support or dismiss Christians using their 1st Amendment rights, right? " Don't be abdsurd. I understand you're irritated. I assure you I do not equate Christianity since the creed with Pat Robertson. But there is a point here, and to me it's this. A lot of Christians of all denominations focus so much attention on Salvation and damnation, much to the disservice of the bulk of what Jesus had to say about how God wants us to behave. I'm fairly dissinterested by any Biblical scholar that says 'the bible is all bullshit' but to date I haven't read any. It seems like an odd field to go into if that's your opinion. A generally accepted working argument is that if a passage can be found that is fairly similar in content in all four canonical gospels and various Gnostic gospels, you go on the assumption it's something Jesus said. That doesn't mean to me tat the Virgin Birth for instance isn't interesting, meaningful, possibly true, symbollically key, That belief in hasn't strongly influenced the course of history, etc. etc. etc. What it does mean to me is that I would place a good deal more of my focus on the content of the sermon on the mount, since aspect of it appear in almost all texts. Even if that doesn't mean it's true, I think it's clear that there was wide spread agrement among early Christians of it's importance to the movement and that the virgin birth (or in the case you sited, the concept of a trinity) were concidered of lesser importance. As for baptism, John the Baptist and Jesus were both Jews. Todays evangelism seems to me awfully far removed from their reform movements. And as far as Christians witnessing on campuses and bringing the good news to local coffee shops, I'm sure there is a great deal of sincerity in many of them and a great deal of pinched, self righteous superiority in others. In some cases I even think that their true, uncluttered, primary inetnt is to teach something. If my Christian friends are right, God already knows the content of their souls better than they do themselves. |
|||||
Jan 13th, 2006 08:42 AM | ||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
|||||
Jan 12th, 2006 07:19 PM | ||||||
Emu | I used to enjoy it a lot more too, back when I could debate with people who played by the rules of logical debate. | |||||
Jan 12th, 2006 07:15 PM | ||||||
ziggytrix |
Again, other than handing out literature (and perhaps talking to anyone who intiated a conversation) the only in my time at a public university the only unsolicited proselytization I saw was from a zealot who called himself "Brother Moses" and some group of creepy kids who sounded like they were affiliated with Fred Phelps' church. I guess it comes down to whether you're preaching peace or whether you're preaching hate. If you're preaching peace, I'll like you. If you're preaching hate, I'll despise you. Simple as that. I used to love religious debate, but it seems fairly tedious lately. |
|||||
Jan 12th, 2006 07:06 PM | ||||||
kahljorn |
"If a Christian tries this, there are "some people" who will react as if they are being encroached upon." If a buddhist/islam/muslim/satanist/thelemite/wiccan/pagan/etc. tried it towards some christians there's a fairly large chance they would respond negatively, right? For the most part i find preachy christians in general to know little to nothing about their faith anyway, so it's generally safe to ignore them. |
|||||
Jan 12th, 2006 06:56 PM | ||||||
Immortal Goat |
I am guessing you include me in your "some people", even though it isn't true. I have no problem with the 700 Club existing. I think that it is a waste of airtime and generally mindless television (as in I would rather watch O'Reilley), but as you said, my remote works just fine, and I can switch it over to whatever I would like. Also, you have also probably included me in the "some people" that feel they are being encroached upon. Again, you are wrong. I have many Christian friends with whom I debate philosophy/ sociology/ religion/politics/ news/ etc. with all the time, and for the most part, it stays civil. The one and only time it ever got past the point of not being civil was with this one Catholic girl (I say this not to say this is all Catholics, but to point out that there are people that I debate with from all brands of Christianity) that decided halfway into the debate to take the inarguable path of "We'll see who'se right". Aside from that, all my debates are calm, civil, and generally friendly, even to people who flat out tell me that I am going to hell. So, yeah, it isn't that I have no respect for Christians, it is that I have no respect for Christians who decide that I am nothing more than another number to add to their list of "believers". It is when I am treated as less than a person than they are that I get pissed off. You, Kevin, are not guilty of this, and I thank you. And I will try and stop using the phrase "most Christians", but maybe it would be good to remember that I may be using it because I have been on the recieving end of the "mostly" arguments in the past, having gone to Catholic schools and vocally never believed it. |
|||||
Jan 12th, 2006 06:32 PM | ||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
If a Budhist were preaching on my campus, or on my corner, i would engage him/her in a conversation. Same goes for Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Scientology, and whatever else. I like that, and i don't think less of them for attempting to win me over. If i don't like what they have to say, perhaps i shall ignore them, or maybe even challenge what they're saying. If a Christian tries this, there are "some people" who will react as if they are being encroached upon. I don't personally watch the 700 Club, and I'm guessing most folks on this board don't either. Yet it seems to bother "some people" that it's even out there. I dunno, my remote works just fine, but that's just me. And Ziggy, if i said to you that most black people enjoyed watermelon and fried chicken, you'd probably get annoyed a tiny bit too, especially after hearing it over, and over, and over again..... |
|||||
Jan 12th, 2006 06:21 PM | ||||||
kahljorn | I'm pretty much of the opinion that christianity and buddhism teach the same thing, so I wouldn't worry about it. If you read early christian teachings you'll find if you just replace the word god with nirvana or some other word that may or may not be appropriate you'll get some satisfactory results. | |||||
Jan 12th, 2006 06:05 PM | ||||||
ziggytrix |
Quote:
If you can't see the line between pushing your beliefs and offering to discuss them, then I don't think you have a very good understanding of the parts of Christianity and most Christians that I find nice. But I think you do, and you're just being contentious cuz Goat uttered those two words that send you into kneejerk mode: "most Christians". Quote:
I don't think I'm smarter than a person of faith, and the fact that you say that bothers me more than anything else said in this thread. I was raised to believe in Jesus. Others were raised to believe in the things their family believed. Just because I will no longer say that I am certain that the things I was taught are correct and that the things others were taught is wrong, does not make me smarter. I fully admit I do not know the truth. If reality is what the Christians say, then they are smarter than me, cuz they're going to heaven and I'm not (unless those once-saved-always-saved Christians are right). If reality is what the Bhuddists say, then both of us are fucked, and I don't think either of us could say we were smarter for it, but maybe we'll get it right on the next go-round. I think it's kinda funny that you say that I think I'm smart for saying that I don't know stuff. I will admit that the "Militant Agnostic: I don't know and you don't either" bumper sticker my old neighbor had amused me. But I don't begrudge my new neighbor for buying me a book written by a minister who used to be an atheist either. |
|||||
Jan 12th, 2006 04:47 PM | ||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Would you say Jesus was a hypocrite, and that he didn't follow his own teachings? Did he lead an ascetic life, and did it entail never preaching, never debating, and yes, never berating? It would seem like this whole discussion would be difficult had he not. Even in this scripture he is making a comparison, he is judging how to be and how not to be, no? Quote:
Quote:
It's all about judgement. If a Christian tells you that your life is wrong, they are trying to teach you. They truly believe that they have heard the "Good News," and thatto not share it with you would be a disservice to you. If a Christian says this, either directly to you, on a billboard, or on television, you take offense. You're smarter than them, and how dare they judge you. Let's be honest, you don't want Christians trying to "educate" anybody. That's fine, but please don't pretend that you make this grand distinction between Pat Robertson and everybody else. I've seen no evidence of such on these boards. |
|||||
Jan 12th, 2006 04:32 PM | ||||||
ziggytrix |
Quote:
Quote:
But enough with the sarcasm. When Jesus said to teach, he didn't say to berate. He didn't say convert. He didn't say to grandstand and make a nice cozy living off of televangelism. Really Kevin, in my experience Catholics (excluding the clergy) are MUCH better about humilty and what is my understanding of "Christlike behavior" than the evangelicals. In it's context the quote I posted from Matthew is the strongest argument for asceticism other than when Jesus went on about camels and needles. I mean for fuck's sake, Robertson claimed that HIS prayers steered a hurricane! How is the passage I quoted out of context or irrelevant? Do you not see any difference between "teaching" and the sort of "wearing your Christianity as a badge of righteous authority" that Goat is talking about? |
|||||
Jan 12th, 2006 03:52 PM | ||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
Jan 12th, 2006 02:30 PM | ||||||
mburbank |
Kev, I know lots of very worthy Christians, but the ones I like best all take what Jesus had to say with more gravity than Paul or Peter. Paul in particular (while I do not question his faith) had strong political concerns and was trying to establish and maintain some degree of control of content and interpretation over a geographically spreading religion. In addition, I think you would be hard pressed to find many serious biblical historians who think the passage from Matthew you quoted was something Jesus actually said, and many scholars believe the line about Father Son and Holy Spirit was added even later than the rest of the passage. I take your point that one can find passages to support differing speciffic views, but I think (personal opinion) the passage Ziggy picked is better supported by the other gospels. I think it speaks not only to the natture of prayer, but to the intent behind the public display of ones closeness to God. If the purpose is that one may be seen by men to be holy, this is pride. I can't guess what Pat Robertson's relationship with God is when he's in the closet, but the 700 club is a mighty big street corner where you can be seen by a lot of men. |
|||||
Jan 12th, 2006 01:45 PM | ||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
There's a difference between what you say to God and what you say to everyone else. But hey, let's play the Gospel Google game a little bit more: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
Jan 11th, 2006 07:42 PM | ||||||
Immortal Goat |
Quote:
And yes, I realize that loud and hardcore are different, but you have to admit that it definitely seems that the more hardcore you are, the more vocal you are about it (I am referring to the people with sandwich board signs yelling "PRAISE JESUS", not the people who put up flyers for prayer groups, believe it or not). And thanks, Ziggy. I was actually going to post that verse myself, but you beat me to it. Well played indeed. |
|||||
Jan 11th, 2006 05:59 PM | ||||||
ziggytrix |
Quote:
|
|||||
Jan 11th, 2006 05:33 PM | ||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Let's talk numbers. How many people are we talking, 3, 5 people? Being loud and being "hardcore" aren't necessarily the same thing, btw. I don't consider myself to be a "casual" Catholic, nor do most of the Catholics I deal with in my every day life. I think the bottom line here is that you have encountered a few vocal (gasp!) Christians in your day, and they probably supported Robertson. And of course, the only "good" Christians in your mind are the ones who don't say anything, and hide in the shadows somewhere. |
|||||
Jan 11th, 2006 05:27 PM | ||||||
Immortal Goat | Well, the hardcores that I went to school with certainly thought he was on to something. Maybe not the casual Catholics, but they pretty much kept quiet. So maybe it wasn't the fact that there were more people that liked him, but that they were the loudest motherfuckers in the school. | |||||
Jan 11th, 2006 05:07 PM | ||||||
KevinTheOmnivore | I'm a pretty involved Roman Catholic, and was raised around other Catholics. I roll in circles of Catholics. I have never EVER met a Roman Catholic who supports Pat Robertson....ever! Many probably didn't even know much about him until he either A. ran for president or B. started saying really crazy shit. | |||||
Jan 8th, 2006 06:48 PM | ||||||
Immortal Goat | You call it on me going to Catholic School or that they like him there? | |||||
Jan 8th, 2006 05:03 PM | ||||||
KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
|||||
Jan 8th, 2006 03:08 PM | ||||||
ziggytrix | He's a Southern Baptist, specifically. | |||||
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. |