PDA

View Full Version : Giving up on GOD by Kathleen Parker


tony hipchest
11-19-2008, 09:01 PM
heres an interresting and provocative piece that shows some of the gnashing of teeth from within-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802886.html



As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.

I'm bathing in holy water as I type.

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it.


But they need those votes!

So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.

Short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette.

Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.

Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right.

It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.

Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.

Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.

With the exception of Miss Alaska, of course. :chuckle:

Even Sarah Palin has blamed Bush policies for the GOP loss. She's not entirely wrong, but she's also part of the problem. Her recent conjecture about whether to run for president in 2012 (does anyone really doubt she will?) speaks for itself:

"I'm like, okay, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is.... And if there is an open door in (20)12 or four years later, and if it's something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."

Let's do pray that God shows Alaska's governor the door. :chuckle:

Meanwhile, it isn't necessary to evict the Creator from the public square, surrender Judeo-Christian values or diminish the value of faith in America. Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world's architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents.

But, like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised has already occurred, which is why he won.

Among Jewish voters, 78 percent went for Obama. Sixty-six percent of under-30 voters did likewise. Forty-five percent of voters ages 18-29 are Democrats compared to just 26 percent Republican; in 2000, party affiliation was split almost evenly.

The young will get older, of course. Most eventually will marry, and some will become their parents. But nonwhites won't get whiter. And the nonreligious won't get religion through external conversion. It doesn't work that way.

Given those facts, the future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party.

Preacher
11-19-2008, 09:19 PM
There are a number of problems in that article.

1. She doesn't account for the wins of 2000, 2002, and 2004, each of which were produced SPECIFICALLY because Karl Rove focused on the "religious vote." Matter of fact, there are a LOT and I mean a LOT of people who DIDN'T vote this time because of McCain. Many of those went third party as well, and other just couldn't vote because they wanted to send a message to the GOP about the GOP becoming the new democratic party.

2.
Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows

I simply arrogant. It assumes evangelicals are low-brow. However, the majority of evangelicals are mid to upper mid class Americans. Does she REALLY think that middle and upper middle class Americans are "low brow"

3. The Jewish vote in presidential elections was the second highest for the GOP since 1988. Bush received the highest Jewish vote 4 years ago since 1988. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html

4. And this is the biggest issue, John McCain was seen as a democrat by many Reaganesqe conservatives.


I take this article with a grain of salt.

PisnNapalm
11-19-2008, 09:24 PM
4. And this is the biggest issue, John McCain was seen as a democrat by many Reaganesqe conservatives.

Yup...

Polamalu Princess
11-19-2008, 09:26 PM
Wow. I do not have a lot to say about what she said, but maybe I can give my thoughts in a few words...the end of time... We need to stop looking for answers from people and look for the answers from God. The Book of Revelations…

GBMelBlount
11-19-2008, 09:27 PM
Liberalism and the resulting breakdown of the traditional norms and values and the redefining of what is considered right, good and obligatory is the reason. Liberalism and it's idiotic socialist leaning followers is the reason and is also what is ruining this country. Let's face it, most slackers, drug dealers, prostitutes, convicts, terrorists, socialists, communists and attorneys and people who like random "change" vote liberal/democrat..

tony hipchest
11-19-2008, 09:57 PM
Liberalism and the resulting breakdown of the traditional norms and values and the redefining of what is considered right, good and obligatory is the reason. Liberalism and it's idiotic socialist leaning followers is the reason and is also what is ruining this country. Let's face it, most slackers, drug dealers, prostitutes, convicts, terrorists, socialists, communists and attorneys and people who like random "change" vote liberal/democrat..too bad the article was written by a conservative/republican, huh? :flap:


lets face it....
....most slackers, drug dealers, prostitutes, convicts, terrorists, socialists, communists and attorneys and people who like random "change"....
....dont vote.

:hunch:

GBMelBlount
11-19-2008, 09:59 PM
too bad the article was written by a conservative/republican, huh? :flap:

Sorry, I forgot this was designated a "no ranting allowed" thread. :chuckle:

GBMelBlount
11-19-2008, 10:03 PM
GBMelblount
....most slackers, drug dealers, prostitutes, convicts, terrorists, socialists, communists and attorneys and people who like random "change"....


Tonyhipchest

....dont vote.

That's only if they can't fit them in the "we'll drive you to the polls" vans. :chuckle:

tony hipchest
11-19-2008, 10:26 PM
That's only if they can't fit them in the "we'll drive you to the polls" vans. :chuckle:LOL... silly republican... do you buy everything the extreme right media feeds you?

have you not seen the price to gas up vans these days? everyone knows the DNC brings in the pimps, ho's and drug dealers on charter flights and then puts them in limos to go to the polls... :dang:

devilsdancefloor
11-19-2008, 10:30 PM
[QUOTE=tony hipchest;478515]too bad the article was written by a conservative/republican, huh? :flap: QUOTE]

Ms parker calls herself a republican, but for the most part to keep her job at the times and going on the chris mathews show alot of times she has to throws the "conservitives" under the bus. So this does not suprise me one bit!


[QUOTE That's only if they can't fit them in the "we'll drive you to the polls" vans. QUOTE]

Remember vote early and often folks next bus wil be here in 20 minutes

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-19-2008, 10:37 PM
Don't you know the Democratic party is the party of the working class, sheesh...

tony hipchest
11-19-2008, 10:39 PM
[QUOTE=tony hipchest;478515]too bad the article was written by a conservative/republican, huh? :flap: QUOTE]

Ms parker calls herself a republican, but for the most part to keep her job at the times and going on the chris mathews show alot of times she has to throws the "conservitives" under the bus. So this does not suprise me one bit!


[QUOTE That's only if they can't fit them in the "we'll drive you to the polls" vans. QUOTE]

Remember vote early and often folks next bus wil be here in 20 minutesi'll be sure to take your word for it. :thumbsup:

:rolleyes:

sorry, but ive just never seen the GOP quote "devilsdancefloor" as a national spokesman/woman.

if you have a link to provide, it sure would be appreciated. :popcorn:

GBMelBlount
11-19-2008, 11:49 PM
devilsdancefloor

Remember vote early and often folks next bus will be here in 20 minutes


lol. THAT was funny! :chuckle:

devilsdancefloor
11-20-2008, 12:06 AM
here is kathleen throwing palin under the bus:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/palin-should-step-down-conservative-commentator-says/

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/24/kathleen-parker-mccain-ch_n_137517.html

And funny how you ALWAYS try to run people over on the board it is quite tiresome :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

tony hipchest
11-20-2008, 12:23 AM
There are a number of problems in that article.

1. She doesn't account for the wins of 2000, 2002, and 2004, each of which were produced SPECIFICALLY because Karl Rove focused on the "religious vote." Matter of fact, there are a LOT and I mean a LOT of people who DIDN'T vote this time because of McCain. Many of those went third party as well, and other just couldn't vote because they wanted to send a message to the GOP about the GOP becoming the new democratic party.

2.

I simply arrogant. It assumes evangelicals are low-brow. However, the majority of evangelicals are mid to upper mid class Americans. Does she REALLY think that middle and upper middle class Americans are "low brow"

3. The Jewish vote in presidential elections was the second highest for the GOP since 1988. Bush received the highest Jewish vote 4 years ago since 1988. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html

4. And this is the biggest issue, John McCain was seen as a democrat by many Reaganesqe conservatives.


I take this article with a grain of salt.i take it worth a grain of salt too, as it was written by a republican. :wink02:

so are you saying that a LOT of the people who DIDNT vote actually just voted for the third party? :noidea:

not only does parker refer to the elitist
Christian right as low-brow, but she also calls them gorrillas, and eebie-geebiees (or whatever)

tony hipchest
11-20-2008, 12:25 AM
l[/url]

And funny how you ALWAYS try to run people over on the board it is quite tiresome :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

are you talkin to me? shall i tuck you in and feed you a bottle now?

:binky:

devilsdancefloor
11-20-2008, 12:30 AM
:yawn:

stlrtruck
11-20-2008, 08:51 AM
Wow. I do not have a lot to say about what she said, but maybe I can give my thoughts in a few words...the end of time... We need to stop looking for answers from people and look for the answers from God. The Book of Revelations…

AMEN Sister! People today want to ignore the good book and it's prophesies on end times. And one day when they're standing there wondering what happen - they won't be able to say, "I didn't know!"

Michael Keller
11-20-2008, 09:37 AM
"GIVING UP ON GOD" The title itself defeats the quality of the article. This article is full of arrogance and egocentricity .

Thanks Tony

because if I were running a campaign I would drop this article off at every single voters house to ASSURE my candidte would gain many more votes , blacks included.

Only those of you who have an overwhelming disdain for God or a God would write or advocate such an article. While you guys are intense and out spoken , your number s are not as large as your noise. I am a Universalist who has the highest level of respect for people of all faith and only sadness for people who are so arrogant to "Give up on God".

I am certain God is not second guessing Himself because there are those who have given up because that sadly happened long before the enlightened Democratic party arrived in the year 2008.

Come on! Whats new . God has been here before . LOL

revefsreleets
11-20-2008, 12:26 PM
Kathleen:

A) Hit a homerun
B) Made up for her attacks on Palin

Lowbrow: 1. a person who is uninterested, uninvolved, or uneducated in intellectual activities or pursuits. –adjective 2. being a lowbrow: that lowbrow idiot.
3. of, pertaining to, or proper to a lowbrow: lowbrow entertainment.

I have been arguing for months about the religious right creating a "new intellectualism", one that works backwards from the fictions of the bible, attempting to reshape the facts about the World we live in. They have made their own centers of learning, their own think-tanks, their own science, so to speak. It's fine for those who are bound up in that indoctrination, but what about the rest of us who aren't?

As far as I'm concerned, she described my disenfranchisement with my party to a tee. You don't have to agree with me or her at all. But you should acknowledge that are many of us out there and WE are Republicans too...

A couple other points: For one, the title of the op/ed piece is not created by the writer, it's constructed by the editor of the paper, in this case the Washington Post.

Also, please bear in mind that she's calling for a return to more private displays of religion, and less (what appears to many of us) overt signs of attempts to move towards a theocracy.

SteelMember
11-20-2008, 01:25 PM
I take this article with a grain of salt.

Maybe we should take it with a few shots of vodka instead. That way, we may lower morals and beliefs just enough to fit into this "new diverse society". Though eventually, you'd have to sober up. The country may be changing, but that dosen't necessarily mean for the better. :noidea:

revefsreleets
11-20-2008, 02:23 PM
Again, how does one thing impact the other. Am I less moral than certain Christians just because I believe differently?

These are the kinds of problems created when you tighten the ropes around your exclusive little club of those who believe just a certain way, the RIGHT way, according to a few. You exclude too many...Kathleen Parker obviosly feels that way, and I agree with her.

Preacher
11-20-2008, 02:37 PM
Suit.

I am quite disconcerted that you would wholeheartedly throw your support behind an article that is quite filled with fallacies,

For someone who attempts to remove all "fictions," you sure have grabbed on to the fictions in this article.

By the way...

New intellectualism? Try again. The science of theology has been around for 18 centuries, and the current method of intellectual pursuit in this particular soft-science has been around since Thomas Aquinas.

Most western intellectual pursuits can find their beginnings out of that science.


However, on this particular article... I believe it is truly an underhanded way to argue for Rhino's ruling the party instead of true elephants. It IS the battle that is currently happening.

revefsreleets
11-20-2008, 02:46 PM
And the Earth WAS for sure, beyond the shadow of a doubt, flat...

I'm too tired to argue about this anymore...but the fact is, the grand old party IS losing it's way and this article speaks to to me on a deep level. If the pendulum swings too much farther towards the ever-powerful (and still growing) Religious Right, I'm out...I'm not going Democrat, but I'll just go Independent.

SteelMember
11-20-2008, 03:09 PM
Again, how does one thing impact the other. Am I less moral than certain Christians just because I believe differently?

These are the kinds of problems created when you tighten the ropes around your exclusive little club of those who believe just a certain way, the RIGHT way, according to a few. You exclude too many...Kathleen Parker obviosly feels that way, and I agree with her.

Being Christian may give you morals, but having morals dosen't nesssarily make you Christian.

Preacher
11-20-2008, 03:25 PM
And the Earth WAS for sure, beyond the shadow of a doubt, flat...

I'm too tired to argue about this anymore...but the fact is, the grand old party IS losing it's way and this article speaks to to me on a deep level. If the pendulum swings too much farther towards the ever-powerful (and still growing) Religious Right, I'm out...I'm not going Democrat, but I'll just go Independent.

And the Earth WAS for sure, beyond the shadow of a doubt, flat...


Has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing.

the grand old party IS losing it's way and this article speaks to to me on a deep level. If the pendulum swings too much farther towards the ever-powerful (and still growing) Religious Right, I'm out...I'm not going Democrat, but I'll just go Independent.

Funny, the Nominee for President of the United States from the Republican Party--- was the ANTITHESIS of the "religious right" this year. So I doubt that the "religious right" has much power.

Furthermore, this phantasmal religious right you and others speak of is about the equivelent of Hilliary's "vast right-wing conspiracy." Tell me please, who is my leader? To whom do I funnel my voice that we dictate to the party who to nominate?

The problem has NOTHING to do with a fictitiously vastly powerful religious right. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that it has drifted to become a party of the rhino's molded after a Nixon-Rockefeller view of government.

I, and many others I know that are both Christians and conservatives, have already left the party, because it has left us. It left us on the issues of finances. IT left us on the issue of big government, it left us on the issue of empowering the states and localities instead of the feds, and quite frankly, many conservatives who happen to be Christians, are fed up with the party for those issues.

This article smacks of one thing. Someone that has a personal dislike of Christianity.

I wonder if THAT is why it resonates so strongly with you. Because frankly, your dislike of the faith, even in a forum of typed words, come across rather emotional, instead of logical.

Be that as it may... The "facts" presented in this article are hilariously wrong. I would expect someone who cares about what "is true" to research those facts.

revefsreleets
11-20-2008, 06:50 PM
Getting a mite bit upset here, I see...

I'm not. Why do you always ask who your leader is? Why do you always deny the existence of "The Religious Right"? Why are you so sensitive on these issues?

Facts? This is all opinion...obviously not yours, judging by the tone of your retorts.

McCain NOT being beholden to Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority and Focus on the Family and the Southern baptist Conference and the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority Coalition and the Family Research Council and The American Family Association and the Eagle Forum and the Campaign for Working Families and the American Life League and the Center for Reclaiming America and Concerned Women for America and Vision America and the Traditional Values Coalition and Priests for Life and the National Right to Life Committee and the Constitution Party and Faith and Action was part of why I voted for him.

It's funny, because being a moderate agnostic, by far, draws the most attacks I receive on this board. I wonder why that might be?

millwalldavey
11-20-2008, 09:10 PM
I gave up a looooooong time ago.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-20-2008, 11:41 PM
Wow. I do not have a lot to say about what she said, but maybe I can give my thoughts in a few words...the end of time... We need to stop looking for answers from people and look for the answers from God. The Book of Revelations…


:coffee:

Preacher
11-20-2008, 11:45 PM
It's funny, because being a moderate agnostic, by far, draws the most attacks I receive on this board. I wonder why that might be?

Because of your arrogant stance towards faith. . . to be honest.


I've had buddies that are athiests and others that are agnostic. I have great respect for them and we have good conversations. However, the key is, they respect my beliefs as well as me respecting their faith or non-faith.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-20-2008, 11:56 PM
Heres my thing about religion...

Take what ever relition you are......

If your parents were a different religion (then you would be that religion too)

So if you grew up in a catholic family... (most likely) you are catholic.....but had your parents been muslim (you would most likely be muslim). two different religion, brough on you through birth and the faith of your parents or guardians....

WHen you are born you have the same chance of being protestant as you do being jewish.....you have no contol over it......(maybe until you are older)....but most people keep the religion that you are born or raised with........

So your religious beliefs could be very different from the ones you have right now based solely on the way you were raised and the stories you were told growing up

Preacher
11-20-2008, 11:59 PM
Heres my thing about religion...

Take what ever relition you are......

If your parents were a different religion (then you would be that religion too)

So if you grew up in a catholic family... (most likely) you are catholic.....but had your parents been muslim (you would most likely be muslim). two different religion, brough on you through birth and the faith of your parents or guardians....

WHen you are born you have the same chance of being protestant as you do being jewish.....you have no contol over it......(maybe until you are older)....but most people keep the religion that you are born or raised with........

So your religious beliefs could be very different from the ones you have right now based solely on the way you were raised and the stories you were told growing up

My wife's parents were Jewish. She is Christian-baptist.
My mother was catholic... WE are now in a southern baptist church.

You are right that being raised in a religion changes what you believe. However, there are numerous people who move from one to the other.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
11-21-2008, 12:03 AM
My wife's parents were Jewish. She is Christian-baptist.
My mother was catholic... WE are now in a southern baptist church.

You are right that being raised in a religion changes what you believe. However, there are numerous people who move from one to the other.

agree, some individuals change their religion. But I would be willing to bet that a higher percentage of individuals stay in the religin that they were raised in than thoes who change.

To me, it just says that your moral beliefs that you brag (not literally meaning you)about are by chance that you believe in them....you could have been born a muslim or hindu... any number of religions and you would then have the moral beliefs of that religion

Preacher
11-21-2008, 12:07 AM
agree, some individuals change their religion. But I would be willing to bet that a higher percentage of individuals stay in the religin that they were raised in than thoes who change.

To me, it just says that your moral beliefs that you brag (not literally meaning you)about are by chance that you believe in them....you could have been born a muslim or hindu... any number of religions and you would then have the moral beliefs of that religion

I understand what you're saying.

What I find interesting though, is that at the core of all the different systems of belief, are some similar core beliefs. There are also some striking dissimilarities between Christianity and most all other belief systems.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-21-2008, 12:38 AM
Aren't most major religions basically the same when it comes to morality?

Preacher
11-21-2008, 01:25 AM
Aren't most major religions basically the same when it comes to morality?

Yes. least the western ones. While familiar with the eastern ones, I am not familiar enough to answer that question.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-21-2008, 01:27 AM
Kind of off topic, but here is the way I look at morality.

If it "feels" wrong, it is. To me your conscience is God giving you direction. I may not go to Church every Sunday, and I can't quote you the Bible, but I love God and know how to treat my fellow man with dignity, respect, and honor.

stlrtruck
11-21-2008, 03:02 AM
Being Christian may give you morals, but having morals dosen't nesssarily make you Christian.

You know SM, you're right. There are some people out there who claim to be Christians and act very much as if they don't know a darn thing about Christ. Then there are those out there who do not call themselve Christians but live a good life. It's a shame and I've met both kinds of people, and usually it's the non-Christian who I'd rather hang out with because they aren't judgemental and have respect for my beliefs and while I may not agree with everything they do, I can respect them just the same.

And just to clear the air before someone wants to call me out on it. Yes, I do believe that those who don't accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour are going to hell. However, I also believe and know that it's not my place to judge them and unless brought up in conversation will not be a point I tend to make. I believe that it's my job to show people the love of Jesus and that can be done in many ways that are not judging.

revefsreleets
11-21-2008, 09:42 AM
Because of your arrogant stance towards faith. . . to be honest.


I've had buddies that are athiests and others that are agnostic. I have great respect for them and we have good conversations. However, the key is, they respect my beliefs as well as me respecting their faith or non-faith.

I take GREAT umbrage towards this. It's HIGHLY hypocritical.

The prevailing attitude here is pretty much this: You're either a Christian who believes a certain way, or you're a heathen going to Hell on a rail. I'm CONSTANTLY patronized and criticized for calling out the giant hypocrisies and inconsistencies of Christianity, and it gets old. It's difficult to take the contrarian view, easy to line up with the overwhelming majority. The fact is, it's my beliefs that are not respected, it's my views that are met with arrogance and ignorance. It's my views that are given no respect.

THAT is the major problem I have with Christianity. It's just 'that way' or the highway. Logic and reason get tossed out the window.

As far as the children thing, there are no such things as Christian kids or Muslim kids. There are just kids. They aren't old enough or wise enough to think for themselves. Of course the indoctrination starts early, and it's much harder for them to break free later in life if they have had a steady diet of dogma rammed down their throat, but they still aren't anything until they decide for themselves.

revefsreleets
11-21-2008, 09:45 AM
Kind of off topic, but here is the way I look at morality.

If it "feels" wrong, it is. To me your conscience is God giving you direction. I may not go to Church every Sunday, and I can't quote you the Bible, but I love God and know how to treat my fellow man with dignity, respect, and honor.

God is love. But the Christian one many believe in here is still sending you to Hell to be tortured eternally. Ain't that compassionate of him?

Just to clarify, I'm not really upset by all this. I've been dealing with it for years, and I've seen this from both sides (raised extremely conservative uber Methodist...my dad used to go knock on random doors and testify...I was raised in the church). It's just that every now and then I gotta call 'em like I see 'em...

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-21-2008, 09:59 AM
So you don't think there is punishment in the afterlife?

revefsreleets
11-21-2008, 10:03 AM
So you don't think there is punishment in the afterlife?

I'm sure there is...but there's just no way a just and merciful God is going to punish 90% of the people who have ever lived because they didn't believe exactly the way one particular denomination of just one particular religion believes.

But that's exactly what is going on here. The Catholics believe the Baptists are goig to Hell. The Methodists believe the Catholics are going to Hell, etc, etc...and they all beleive I'm going to Hell. It's absurd.

stlrtruck
11-21-2008, 11:24 AM
God is love. But the Christian one many believe in here is still sending you to Hell to be tortured eternally. Ain't that compassionate of him?


God has compassion for them now. His Word, if you choose to believe it, is very clear with wanting people to make the free will choice to recognize Christ as Lord and Saviour and the only way to get to heaven. Accepting Him in that way writes our names in the Lambs Book of Life and giving us entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. If not, then yes there will be no compassion on judgment day and those who do not believe will spend eternity in hell.

For the most part I do not shove my beliefs down someone's throught unless we are in discussion, such as this, then I will comment. However, I've learned that in my every day life that Jesus Christ is not something you just ram down someone's throat until they accept Him. My job as a believer and one that has a relationship with Jesus Christ is to share His Love, Compassion, and His Word to those around me. That can come simply with a smile, holding the door, helping change a flat tire, etc. And while these things are in and of themselves nice things to do, they may very well be the difference in starting a conversation that could lead to talking about Christ - upon which should the Lord put me in such a situation I can only pray that I would have the strength to be bold enough to speak.

And I'm sorry Rev but to constantly think that God is not compassionate is a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the New Testament. God Loves You and He Loves Everyone - exactly where they are at this very moment. :hug:

You choose to believe another way and that's fine. I've read your thoughts and I don't discount them in my thoughts but at the end of the day, I choose to believe that Jesus Christ is the answer, He is the only way to get into Heaven, and those who do not believe - unfortunately, even after being told about JC - will go to hell! Maybe it's not the most popular message but that's why Jesus Christ wants a relationship with people now, so he can show them grace, mercy, and salvation giving them an eternity in heaven, regardless of denomination.

I've stated it before - Jesus Christ is not about religion, He is about relationship!

revefsreleets
11-21-2008, 12:51 PM
All that's fine and good, but completely beside the point.

Let me try another approach, expounding upon the ideas of someone else who posted earlier in this thread.

If you were born into a Muslim family, and all you ever learned as a kid was Islamic beliefs from the time you are little, you are going to be preconditioned to believe that Islam is the one and only faith, and that all others are false religions. That's the nature of indoctination. We ARE a christian country, that's the religion the vast majority choose and worship as. This society (and this board) are preconditioned to accept christianity as the "one religion" that is acceptable.

But if this board was in based Turkey or Indonesia, we'd be having all these same discussions, but the majority would be passionately arguing how ISLAM is the one and true way, and how I'd be going to Hell for questioning that religion. There would be "facts" produced that Islam is the oldest Religion. Whatever their version of creationism would be lauded and defended. The last post would have been all about Allah, and how he has compassion for all the christians he's going to condemn to an eternity of agony.

Many Religons believe that they are the only one way. Only one of them can be right, or they could all be wrong. It makes much more sense to me that God lets man find his own way, and I also believe he probably frowns upon these exclusionary "clubs" that we have created ostensibly to honor him.

I'm not bashing people who have faith, but I question people who have blind faith, and I definitely wonder about otherwise wise and rational people who buy into this idea that there is only one path, and it just so happens to be the one that the culture THEY were born into embraces to the exclusion of all other cultures and religions.

That makes for a very happy accident for them, but a pretty nasty one for all the billions of others who just weren't that lucky.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-21-2008, 01:01 PM
But that's exactly what is going on here. The Catholics believe the Baptists are goig to Hell. The Methodists believe the Catholics are going to Hell, etc, etc...and they all beleive I'm going to Hell. It's absurd.

That's all baloney...Christians believe that Christians go to heaven, doesn't matter what "type" of Christian you are as long as you all have the same textbook in class.

I have always wondered myself if people that are not Christian, but lead Christian lives are going to hell. I guess we will all find out some day :noidea:

Leftoverhard
11-21-2008, 01:10 PM
I choose to believe that Jesus Christ is the answer, He is the only way to get into Heaven, and those who do not believe - unfortunately, even after being told about JC - will go to hell!

Personally I can't wait. This "hell" place is at least going to be exciting.

Seriously, it's very, very difficult for me to imagine that one God (of course, the right one) sorts everyone out when they die.

Vis
11-21-2008, 01:16 PM
Wow. I do not have a lot to say about what she said, but maybe I can give my thoughts in a few words...the end of time... We need to stop looking for answers from people and look for the answers from God. The Book of Revelations…

Get the title right first

stlrtruck
11-21-2008, 01:23 PM
All that's fine and good, but completely beside the point.

Let me try another approach, expounding upon the ideas of someone else who posted earlier in this thread.

If you were born into a Muslim family, and all you ever learned as a kid was Islamic beliefs from the time you are little, you are going to be preconditioned to believe that Islam is the one and only faith, and that all others are false religions. That's the nature of indoctination. We ARE a christian country, that's the religion the vast majority choose and worship as. This society (and this board) are preconditioned to accept christianity as the "one religion" that is acceptable.

But if this board was in based Turkey or Indonesia, we'd be having all these same discussions, but the majority would be passionately arguing how ISLAM is the one and true way, and how I'd be going to Hell for questioning that religion. There would be "facts" produced that Islam is the oldest Religion. Whatever their version of creationism would be lauded and defended. The last post would have been all about Allah, and how he has compassion for all the christians he's going to condemn to an eternity of agony.

Many Religons believe that they are the only one way. Only one of them can be right, or they could all be wrong. It makes much more sense to me that God lets man find his own way, and I also believe he probably frowns upon these exclusionary "clubs" that we have created ostensibly to honor him.

I'm not bashing people who have faith, but I question people who have blind faith, and I definitely wonder about otherwise wise and rational people who buy into this idea that there is only one path, and it just so happens to be the one that the culture THEY were born into embraces to the exclusion of all other cultures and religions.

That makes for a very happy accident for them, but a pretty nasty one for all the billions of others who just weren't that lucky.

And I've heard far more stories of those "other" religions having converts to Christianity than vice versa (don't get me wrong I'm not saying that Christians don't convert to "other" religions - I'm saying you don't read about it or hear about it as often).

My question to you is don't you have blind faith in your belief system as well? I mean to not know but to think that God allows man to find his own path takes just as much blind faith as it does for me to believe that Jesus Christ is the Sovereign Lord over all. You don't want to admit it but I do believe it takes just as much faith to believe in a god or in flawed sciences.

And yes the Bible's prophesy of the End Times does make for an ugly mess in the end for non-believers of Jesus Christ. But if you think God won't do it, just look back in the Old Testament - it is full of destruction of man!

stlrtruck
11-21-2008, 01:25 PM
Personally I can't wait. This "hell" place is at least going to be exciting.

Seriously, it's very, very difficult for me to imagine that one God (of course, the right one) sorts everyone out when they die.

Judgment Day isn't going to be pretty.

And I don't know what your definition of exciting is but from what I've read, it isn't going to a romp on a roller coaster with keggers and strippers.

Vis
11-21-2008, 01:27 PM
Where else would the strippers be?

stlrtruck
11-21-2008, 01:43 PM
Where else would the strippers be?

They might be there, but they aren't going to be serving ice cold beers and taking dollars while giving lap dances.

revefsreleets
11-21-2008, 01:50 PM
It's supposed to be pretty ugly. Lot's of plagues and general nastiness.

Here's a fun fact. Even if every single "Christian" right now is saved, if Judgement Day was tomorrow, 5 BILLION people would be condemned to eternal damnation, the worst kinds of suffering imaginable, and without end, too.

5 Billion people. All everybody else has to do to be spared is give up THEIR religions and convert to Christianity and they'll be spared. Even the people who don't have a clue what we're even talking about, isoltaed people who've never heard of Jesus are going to suffer. Yippee!

That doesn't sound loving or compassionate to me.

Vis
11-21-2008, 01:56 PM
Jesus died for your sins unless that sin is disbelief.

stlrtruck
11-21-2008, 02:00 PM
It's supposed to be pretty ugly. Lot's of plagues and general nastiness.

Here's a fun fact. Even if every single "Christian" right now is saved, if Judgement Day was tomorrow, 5 BILLION people would be condemned to eternal damnation, the worst kinds of suffering imaginable, and without end, too.

5 Billion people. All everybody else has to do to be spared is give up THEIR religions and convert to Christianity and they'll be spared. Even the people who don't have a clue what we're even talking about, isoltaed people who've never heard of Jesus are going to suffer. Yippee!

That doesn't sound loving or compassionate to me.

If I remember correctly, it is very clear in the bible that everyone will have heard about Jesus Christ before End Times.

You obviously don't understand the compassione and love from Jesus Christ. There is an opportunity now and even in the future for all to receive it, to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, to be redemned to the Kingdom of Heaven. But it's not always going to be that way. However, you want to jump right to the end without reading what is before you now.

So let's go back a few pages. You believe in a god, but think that he allows for mankind to determine their own way to heaven. You choose not to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour and without Him you are going to hell. Sound about right? So over the last several posts I've explained to you that the Lord is Love and Compassion but you still choose to not accept it at this point - you see that's the beauty of my relationship with Christ. There is no need for me to yell in your face, "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL." I don't know that for sure, but I know that I have spoken truth about it and you now have to make the free-will decision on whether or not to accept it. Even if you don't, I won't condemn you to hell, that's not my job. I've got enough of my own sins that I need not worry about yours.

But I digress, there is an opportunity for everyone to say, "I'm a sinner, I'm sorry for my sins, and I'm in need of a saviour and that saviour is Jesus Christ and I want Him in my life." And that opportunity comes way before the judgment that is waiting for everyone Christian and Non-Christian alike at the End Times.

stlrtruck
11-21-2008, 02:01 PM
Jesus died for your sins unless that sin is disbelief.

No He even died for that sin too!

Vis
11-21-2008, 02:03 PM
No He even died for that sin too!

So you don't have to believe to get into Heaven?

I don't get why the passages used to exclude aren't interpreted to mean that Jesus died for everyone's sins and in saying the only way to Heaven is through Him, He meant it is satisfied for ALL by that sacrifice itself.

Well, I do get it. It's so people can be self satisfied and can look down on the unsaved people who will burn for eternity.

revefsreleets
11-21-2008, 02:07 PM
Well, there it is. Really not much more to say...

I'm trying to figure this one out. All the tribes in the deep jungle who have already lived and died and never heard a peep about any of this, they in heaven? They can't have "asked Jesus to forgive their sins" so what happens to them?

Here's the beauty of this...just like in "The Santa Clause", when it's all about faith, any answer will do. In that movie, Santa just made a chimney appear in every house, and then it disappeared when he left. I'm reasonably sure there will be some kind of explanation as to how this all works, and I'm anxious to hear it.

stlrtruck
11-21-2008, 02:14 PM
So you don't have to believe to get into Heaven?

I don't get why the passages used to exclude aren't interpreted to mean that Jesus died for everyone's sins and in saying the only way to Heaven is through Him, He meant it is satisfied for ALL by that sacrifice itself.

Well, I do get it. It's so people can be self satisfied and can look down on the unsaved people who will burn for eternity.

He died/sacrificed for all man's sins. However, if they choose not to accept that Paid In Full action for their sins then their debt is not forgiven and therefore because their sin is not wiped clean, they can not be in the presence of the Lord.

And it has nothing to do with self satisfaction for me or looking down on unsaved people. Some of my closest friends are unsaved and I love them just the same as I do my church family (if not more). And I continue to pray for them too.

stlrtruck
11-21-2008, 02:17 PM
Well, there it is. Really not much more to say...

I'm trying to figure this one out. All the tribes in the deep jungle who have already lived and died and never heard a peep about any of this, they in heaven? They can't have "asked Jesus to forgive their sins" so what happens to them?

Here's the beauty of this...just like in "The Santa Clause", when it's all about faith, any answer will do. In that movie, Santa just made a chimney appear in every house, and then it disappeared when he left. I'm reasonably sure there will be some kind of explanation as to how this all works, and I'm anxious to hear it.

Wish I had an answer for you, but I don't. But that brings up an interesting point so maybe the next time I'm discussing things with others, I'll bring it up and see what they think and I'll get bakc to you. Maybe Preacher can answer it.

What I'm trying to figure out is how you're thinking about the people in the deep jungles but yet not thinking about your own eternal salvation.

revefsreleets
11-21-2008, 02:20 PM
What I'm trying to figure out is how you're thinking about the people in the deep jungles but yet not thinking about your own eternal salvation.

We seem to have quite the disconnect. I think about it every day. More and more, in fact, the older I get.

Vis
11-21-2008, 02:21 PM
Well, there it is. Really not much more to say...

I'm trying to figure this one out. All the tribes in the deep jungle who have already lived and died and never heard a peep about any of this, they in heaven? They can't have "asked Jesus to forgive their sins" so what happens to them?

Here's the beauty of this...just like in "The Santa Clause", when it's all about faith, any answer will do. In that movie, Santa just made a chimney appear in every house, and then it disappeared when he left. I'm reasonably sure there will be some kind of explanation as to how this all works, and I'm anxious to hear it.

A great interview of Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete, formerly a physicist, a professor of theology at St. Joseph's Seminary in New York, and president of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico.



Wright: But didn't Paul say in the Bible that you do have to believe that Jesus is the son of God to be saved?

Lorenzo Albacete: Yes... but then I don't read the Bible that way. I read Paul in it's context in whatever he was dealing with in his own because ... "You're right Paul, no problem. Look I'll sign on to anything but you now explain to me, what do you mean by believe that Jesus is the son of God? Recite the creed? What if you've never heard of Jesus?

Wright: To me it would mean believing that he has completely unique status among people who have appeared on the planet And is not just like the Buddha in being particularly enlightened but has a completely unique connection to the divine.

Lorenzo Albacete: If you have heard of him, he has a completely unique connection, as much as this claim has been made of him. It may have been a misunderstanding but it's pretty unique because Christianity is the only one that makes this claim of any man.

Wright: So you believe that a Buddhist can be saved, can have salvation, the afterlife that a Christian has...

Lorenzo Albacete: Probably faster than I would.

Wright: And what about an atheist?

Lorenzo Albacete: Oh yes, faster than I would in all probability...

Wright: What would an atheist have to do to get into Heaven?

Lorenzo Albacete: Even St. Thomas Aquinas would say "Follow his or her conscience." Be honest to your heart.

Wright: But clear moral...

Lorenzo Albacete: Yes but it's not the morality that gains you heaven. It's not because an atheist does good things. It is the heart that gets you there. This is very important. Even for the Christian, a Christian can fulfill every damn moral law there is And end up in hell. This is a doctrine of the church. It's not what you do, it is your stand in respect to otherness. It is your conscience. I don't know a more beautiful expression in this than the work of Levinas, who is not a Christian. He talks about the moral challenge to you by the face of an other. It's your ability to see And respond to this otherness of the other in a way that gives yourself to them...

Wright: It isn't just being nice to people, it's being nice to people out of conviction And understanding ...

Lorenzo Albacete: Which doesn't even have to be formulated in the mind.

Wright: But at some level, either conscious or unconscious, there has to an apprehension that love is moral truth...

Lorenzo Albacete: Love is truth. Being is love which is the reason why for the mystery of the trinity... that's what it means anyway... And between truth And love they are two names of the same reality. Truth that inspires you to do violence to the dignity of another person, including their religious consciousness or vices, etc. that is not truth. You are being guided by something horrible, a monstrous distortion of the truth which is the other energy... whether you want to call it Satanic, original sin... this is the distortion, it's the very negative of the truth.

1:06:31

Wright: As a matter of fact, you've just expressed a very liberal salvation doctrine... inclusive And modern...

Lorenzo Albacete: I think you could look it up And read in Pope John Paul II, the redeemer of man, Second Vatican Council ... I can give you many references... the cataclysm of the church...

Wright: Is that the Catholic position that a Buddhist or an atheist can go to Heaven?

Lorenzo Albacete: Yes. Sure.

Wright: There are a lot of Protestant denominations that aren't saying that...

Lorenzo Albacete: That's right.. I respect that. We do not say that. In the mass in the fourth Eucharistic prayer of the mass, we pray for those who seek you -- we are praying to God -- for those who seek you with a sincere heart. We are praying as much for them as we are for the Pope, the bishop, the church, etc.

Wright: So ultimately yours is ...

Lorenzo Albacete: I don't think I'm being a liberal Catholic. That is the doctrine of the church.

Wright: Ok but it's more liberal than some Christians.

Lorenzo Albacete: I know ... to use that word, I suppose I accept it.

Wright: And it's not a particularist doctrine of salvation... would you agree with me that ... maybe somewhat particularist in terms of revelation, depending on...

Lorenzo Albacete: It is not particularist in the sense that you mean particulars. It is universal... the word Catholic means universal... but I don't think that there is a conflict between the particular And the universal.

Wright: And do you agree that, for the purposes of the salvation of the world in the mundane sense of salvation that is the world's survival in good shape, there needs to be a movement towards universalism on the part of those people that remain intensely particularistic.

Lorenzo Albacete: I think that particularism itself will move in that direction.

stlrtruck
11-21-2008, 02:23 PM
We seem to have quite the disconnect. I think about it every day. More and more, in fact, the older I get.

Well, that's good to hear. I'll pray for you! And I'll also try to get you an answer on the people in the deep jungles who were never told about Jesus Christ.

As much as I'd love to sit here and continue this discussion, I've got to pack for my vacation.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Preacher
11-21-2008, 04:31 PM
I take GREAT umbrage towards this. It's HIGHLY hypocritical.

The prevailing attitude here is pretty much this: You're either a Christian who believes a certain way, or you're a heathen going to Hell on a rail. I'm CONSTANTLY patronized and criticized for calling out the giant hypocrisies and inconsistencies of Christianity, and it gets old. It's difficult to take the contrarian view, easy to line up with the overwhelming majority. The fact is, it's my beliefs that are not respected, it's my views that are met with arrogance and ignorance. It's my views that are given no respect.

THAT is the major problem I have with Christianity. It's just 'that way' or the highway. Logic and reason get tossed out the window.

As far as the children thing, there are no such things as Christian kids or Muslim kids. There are just kids. They aren't old enough or wise enough to think for themselves. Of course the indoctrination starts early, and it's much harder for them to break free later in life if they have had a steady diet of dogma rammed down their throat, but they still aren't anything until they decide for themselves.

Suit,

When you call my faith "fables" and "low brow" and mock it, that is HIGHLY arrogant. I have not once mocked your position. I have argued against it. I have presented evidence against it. However, I don't look down on you or think you are lesser than me for holding such a position. I don't think you are intellectually under me. However, from many of your posts, that is EXACTLY what I think you feel towards me, and many others in here that have a faith.

Yes, my faith says that those who do not believe face an everlasting hell. That doesn't mean I am better than you. It means that you and I are in the same boat. We are both in this world, cut off from the eternal that we were both created for. We are on the same journey.

How is that arrogant? Seems to me, that is equal. By the way, why would a loving God FORCE someone to spend an eternity with Him when that person didn't want to? Seems to me, that is more unloving.

Hell is a place where God's existence is not. It is un-creation. If someone chooses to not be with God, they choose to remove themselves from his presence. He will, as a loving God, accept their choice, and remove himself completely from them.

Leftoverhard
11-21-2008, 05:05 PM
If I remember correctly, it is very clear in the bible that everyone will have heard about Jesus Christ before End Times.

You obviously don't understand the compassione and love from Jesus Christ. There is an opportunity now and even in the future for all to receive it, to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, to be redemned to the Kingdom of Heaven.

So....it's basically "You're with us or against us?" I absolutely believe that the Jesus I've heard about would have nothing to do with that mentallity.

Preacher
11-21-2008, 05:12 PM
So....it's basically "You're with us or against us?" I absolutely believe that the Jesus I've heard about would have nothing to do with that mentallity.

There are a number of passages that point to an exclusivity based on belief. However, that exclusivity is misunderstood by about 95% of those who argue about it, on either side IMO.

Leftoverhard
11-21-2008, 05:21 PM
Very nice post vis.

Wright: It isn't just being nice to people, it's being nice to people out of conviction And understanding ...

Lorenzo Albacete: Which doesn't even have to be formulated in the mind.

Wright: But at some level, either conscious or unconscious, there has to an apprehension that love is moral truth...

Lorenzo Albacete: Love is truth. Being is love which is the reason why for the mystery of the trinity... that's what it means anyway... And between truth And love they are two names of the same reality. Truth that inspires you to do violence to the dignity of another person, including their religious consciousness or vices, etc. that is not truth. You are being guided by something horrible, a monstrous distortion of the truth which is the other energy... whether you want to call it Satanic, original sin... this is the distortion, it's the very negative of the truth.

This really elegantly explains my postition on torture. It also explains what I was saying in another thread about not taking action (in the case of torture) because of one's religious beliefs but agreeing with it in your mind - in affect - I can't do it but I would if there wasn't my faith holding me back. It's a strange disconnect that I just don't get.
I have no faith. I'm the atheist. My heart tells me that torture is wrong, therefore I would not participate or even think it's an option.

Preacher
11-21-2008, 05:24 PM
Very nice post vis.



This really elegantly explains my postition on torture. It also explains what I was saying in another thread about not taking action (in the case of torture) because of one's religious beliefs but agreeing with it in your mind - in affect - I can't do it but I would if there wasn't my faith holding me back. It's a strange disconnect that I just don't get.
I have no faith. I'm the atheist. My heart tells me that torture is wrong, therefore I would not participate or even think it's an option.

Let me answer this in the other thread, so we don't hijack this one and have two threads on the same topic.

stlrtruck
11-21-2008, 05:55 PM
So....it's basically "You're with us or against us?" I absolutely believe that the Jesus I've heard about would have nothing to do with that mentallity.

I never stated those words. You've added them to what I've posted. At this moment, it's not about being with Jesus or against Jesus. It's about having a relationship with Him at this very moment in life and growing in that relationship.

Eventually, at some point you will have to choose whom you serve. And that choice will determine where you spend eternity.

Just because you do not agree with me at this point does not mean that I should cast you aside. It means that I should continue to show you the Love of God regardless of what you believe but based on what I believe and where I stand on my relationship with Jesus Christ.

xfl2001fan
11-21-2008, 06:33 PM
It's supposed to be pretty ugly. Lot's of plagues and general nastiness.

Here's a fun fact. Even if every single "Christian" right now is saved, if Judgement Day was tomorrow, 5 BILLION people would be condemned to eternal damnation, the worst kinds of suffering imaginable, and without end, too.

5 Billion people. All everybody else has to do to be spared is give up THEIR religions and convert to Christianity and they'll be spared. Even the people who don't have a clue what we're even talking about, isoltaed people who've never heard of Jesus are going to suffer. Yippee!

That doesn't sound loving or compassionate to me.

My religion is irrelevant in this...but I believe (having spent a lot of time around the Christian Faith) that the Bible states (somewhere) that those not given a shot at hearing His word will be judged (instead) by their actions/hearts.

revefsreleets
11-24-2008, 01:00 PM
I think the Lorenzo Albacete position is now my position. What a beautiful, inclusive, sensitive and well thought out explanation. It also means that Jehovah's Winess', Scientologists, Mormons, et al, the faiths that require people to hit certain benchmarks for salvation are doomed. THAT'S a concept I can get behind.

As far as faith and fables, I believe that the bible is figurative. I think it's rather obvious that it is allegorical and, to a lessor extent, apocryphal. There are parables in the bible, and no one accepts those as real. Noah's Ark is the perfect example...it makes INFINITELY more sense to view that as a tale of faith and consequences than to bend spoons and believe it as real. If I sound like I'm mocking I apologize, but it stretches credulity way past it's breaking point to defend childrens stories just because in certain stricter faiths there is no moment of epiphany where someone takes you aside and tells you that the stories aren't literal.

I often feel like I am arguing with flat-earthers and it's frustrating...

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
11-24-2008, 02:27 PM
Very nice post vis.



This really elegantly explains my postition on torture. It also explains what I was saying in another thread about not taking action (in the case of torture) because of one's religious beliefs but agreeing with it in your mind - in affect - I can't do it but I would if there wasn't my faith holding me back. It's a strange disconnect that I just don't get.
I have no faith. I'm the atheist. My heart tells me that torture is wrong, therefore I would not participate or even think it's an option.

Why is torture "wrong" if there is no-one to tell you what is right and wrong?

xfl2001fan
11-24-2008, 04:27 PM
As far as faith and fables, I believe that the bible is figurative. I think it's rather obvious that it is allegorical and, to a lessor extent, apocryphal. There are parables in the bible, and no one accepts those as real. Noah's Ark is the perfect example...it makes INFINITELY more sense to view that as a tale of faith and consequences than to bend spoons and believe it as real. If I sound like I'm mocking I apologize, but it stretches credulity way past it's breaking point to defend childrens stories just because in certain stricter faiths there is no moment of epiphany where someone takes you aside and tells you that the stories aren't literal.

I often feel like I am arguing with flat-earthers and it's frustrating...

Even as a Christian, I have my wife convinced (finally) that the Old Testament can't be a pure and direct truth...because otherwise, God allows Incest. If Adam and Eve were the first two humans (and God created no others) then their kids must have been with each other.

If God did flood the entire earth, then we're all direct descendants of Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives...which means a lot of cousin-on-cousin action. (This might explain guys like Pee-Wee Herman and Michael Jackson's behavior though...)

So either God loves incest...or the Bible isn't as historically accurate as some "By The Book" Christians/Jews/Mormons/etc... claim it to be.

Preacher
11-24-2008, 07:31 PM
I often feel like I am arguing with flat-earthers and it's frustrating...

And in that answer, lies the entire problem.

Flat earth theory was easy to prove wrong because it was quantifiably wrong. Period.

However, the question of OT narratives being fact, fable, teaching narratives based on historical facts, theological treatises using historical narratives, etc. etc. are far more intricate and debatable. In just slice of the discussion (Canonical Linguistic approach) you have many questions dealing with text vs. event, redaction and inspiration, etc. etc. Within Evangelical christianity, there are literally at least 5 distinct major schools of thought, each one dividing out mulitple times. All of which take different views on the history, historicity, and the narratives of the OT. It is impossible to pidgeon-hole even those who hold to a literal-translation, because everyone mentioned above, which would account for probably 20 plus different positions, would hold to literal historical.

Thus, I recognize that many people come to the table from many sides with opinions that are justifiable with solid research. Some of those opinions are in direct opposition to my own both within and outside my faith. I welcome all those discussions, as some are excellent correctives to my position. I have argued in the political threads concerning black liberation theology. I am familiar with it because of introductory studies of post-colonial/liberation theology/feminist.womanist/black/etc. theologies which are all presenting correctives to my own, including OT theology.

I just ask that everyone who comes to the table is these discussions recognize that others, including those who have done the research and study and still hold to strict interpretations, are able to hold those positions based on exhaustive intellectual pursuit; and that intellectual pursuit is not trivialized because of the final position they hold.

Preacher
11-24-2008, 07:39 PM
Even as a Christian, I have my wife convinced (finally) that the Old Testament can't be a pure and direct truth...because otherwise, God allows Incest. If Adam and Eve were the first two humans (and God created no others) then their kids must have been with each other.

If God did flood the entire earth, then we're all direct descendants of Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives...which means a lot of cousin-on-cousin action. (This might explain guys like Pee-Wee Herman and Michael Jackson's behavior though...)

So either God loves incest...or the Bible isn't as historically accurate as some "By The Book" Christians/Jews/Mormons/etc... claim it to be.

Pure truth is actually a very loaded phrase as it has many implications in biblical theology.

Also, we should not confuse Sunday-school stories with actually scriptural truth. Adam is the Hebrew word for man. There is no reason to necessarily understand the text as one man and one woman. Even if you accept the literal narrative, it may be plural.

BTW, cousins marrying and consumating marriages have only been frowned upon recently, and even that only certain circles. Heck, in Tennessee it is still legal.

Yeah, yuck. I frown upon it, but we also can't project our modern sympathies and feelings back on previous generations to judge whether their writings are accurate for their times.

revefsreleets
11-24-2008, 08:22 PM
But therein lies the rub. You have a blind spot and there's nothing I can do or say or type that will ever prompt you to look directly at it. The FACT remains that in order to literally interpret the bible, you have to ignore (or do mental gymnastics to jump over and around) the visible, the observed, the real and empirical. The glue that holds it all together is faith, and faith is more powerful than anything else....it quite literally CAN move mountains because, given a deep enough faith, the mountain that is very real and very immovable can disappear to those who believe hard enough.

Nothing wrong with that at all...but I have a different view.

Anyway, I love the Albacete position. The ironic thing is that he's "going to Hell" for those views if he's held to the same standards that I have been. I think that's sad and awful.

Preacher
11-24-2008, 08:43 PM
But therein lies the rub. You have a blind spot and there's nothing I can do or say or type that will ever prompt you to look directly at it. The FACT remains that in order to literally interpret the bible, you have to ignore (or do mental gymnastics to jump over and around) the visible, the observed, the real and empirical. The glue that holds it all together is faith, and faith is more powerful than anything else....it quite literally CAN move mountains because, given a deep enough faith, the mountain that is very real and very immovable can disappear to those who believe hard enough.

Nothing wrong with that at all...but I have a different view.

Anyway, I love the Albacete position. The ironic thing is that he's "going to Hell" for those views if he's held to the same standards that I have been. I think that's sad and awful.


Actually, faith doesn't directly have anything to do with it at the level I am discussing this issue. Bultmann so spiritualized scripture that there was absolutely no historical account which he would point to. Jesus was only resurrected in the life of the church, not in history. Thus, the issue of faith and the issue of the bible and history were completely separated by him. While I disagree with him completely, I do beleive that he will be in heaven based on his faith.

Wellhausen produced a view which has a redactor wiring together four distinct sources that were contradictory and in someplaces, downright wrong. Yet, he had a deep faith in Christ and God.

Honestly Suit. I think that you are reacting to Sunday school christianity, and not the science of theology. If you are truly trying to seek "truth" then part of that search will be the science of theology. However, if you are looking for reasons and ways to dismiss a "Sunday-school religion," there are far simpler ways then the path you're taking.

Each person will walk their own path. I respect you and the path you take, though I whole-heartedly disagree with it.

steelcity_88
11-24-2008, 08:48 PM
Why is torture "wrong" if there is no-one to tell you what is right and wrong?

See, this is the kind of attitude that bothers most of us Atheists/Agnostics. I mean, are there some people arrogant enough to believe that we have take our morals from their religion? There's a feeling people are able to experience, it's called "empathy." You know in your gut what is right and wrong. I would much rather live a life according to my own beliefs than to live one out of fear of a divine spanking.

revefsreleets
11-25-2008, 09:09 AM
Hmmmm...interesting. I'm stuck on Sunday School logic, but you're the one that believes Noah's Ark was real. Alrighty, then...

Leftoverhard
11-25-2008, 10:23 AM
Why is torture "wrong" if there is no-one to tell you what is right and wrong?

Uh, um, uh. Serious?

Preacher
11-25-2008, 06:08 PM
Hmmmm...interesting. I'm stuck on Sunday School logic, but you're the one that believes Noah's Ark was real. Alrighty, then...

No, I did not say stuck in, I said reacting to the way Christianity is presented in Sunday school.

When I look at the narrative of the Ark, I come to it with questions conscerning textual criticism, narrative intent, authorial intent, Speach-Act theory, Canonical criticism, etc.

To put it plainly, I just wonder why it seems your not engaging the academy of theology, and instead engaging the beliefs as taught in Sunday school?

xfl2001fan
11-25-2008, 08:14 PM
Pure truth is actually a very loaded phrase as it has many implications in biblical theology.

Also, we should not confuse Sunday-school stories with actually scriptural truth. Adam is the Hebrew word for man. There is no reason to necessarily understand the text as one man and one woman. Even if you accept the literal narrative, it may be plural.

BTW, cousins marrying and consumating marriages have only been frowned upon recently, and even that only certain circles. Heck, in Tennessee it is still legal.

Yeah, yuck. I frown upon it, but we also can't project our modern sympathies and feelings back on previous generations to judge whether their writings are accurate for their times.


The problem with your argument is that many people believe those Sunday-School stories because they are taught as being more than just scriptually truth, but as an actual truth. If your argument was explained to the "masses" (possibly as they mature into the Pre-teen and so on classes) then there wouldn't be so many "blind faith" hard core hypocrites that have flooded our great nation. Ultimately, I don't believe enough of the science of theology is taught at church to describe the various elements/translation possibilities.

I read somewhere that the word used for God was sometimes pluralized for Gods throughout the ancient/initial texts in places where it wouldn't normally apply to the translation we use. (I.E. not just in text where God is saying don't worship other Gods.) I believe one particular reference was during the time when Moses was following a pillar of fire. Granted, the guy writing was describing why he thought Aliens have been here on Earth for centuries, but if he is right in regards to that particular portion of the translation, then there is that much more to be concerned with in regards to the accuracy of the Bible as we read it today. So while I have to take what this guy proposed with a HUGE grain of salt...I also know to take the current "version" (i.e. translation) of the Bible with a huge grain of salt as well.

One of my favorite quotes concerning Christianity/Atheism is something I heard while listening to DC Talks's "Jesus Freak".

The single greatest cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyles. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.

I am not sure that truer words have ever been spoken.

Whether or not the bible permits incest...it's proven to be unhealthy and provides great risks, often times leaving the off spring of such unions with physical and mental deformities. When you consider that we're supposedly using less than 10% of our brains...I guess the idea of cousin on cousin in our deep history would explain much about our present day issues. :banging::chuckle:

Preacher
11-26-2008, 03:14 AM
The problem with your argument is that many people believe those Sunday-School stories because they are taught as being more than just scriptually truth, but as an actual truth. If your argument was explained to the "masses" (possibly as they mature into the Pre-teen and so on classes) then there wouldn't be so many "blind faith" hard core hypocrites that have flooded our great nation. Ultimately, I don't believe enough of the science of theology is taught at church to describe the various elements/translation possibilities.

I read somewhere that the word used for God was sometimes pluralized for Gods throughout the ancient/initial texts in places where it wouldn't normally apply to the translation we use. (I.E. not just in text where God is saying don't worship other Gods.) I believe one particular reference was during the time when Moses was following a pillar of fire. Granted, the guy writing was describing why he thought Aliens have been here on Earth for centuries, but if he is right in regards to that particular portion of the translation, then there is that much more to be concerned with in regards to the accuracy of the Bible as we read it today. So while I have to take what this guy proposed with a HUGE grain of salt...I also know to take the current "version" (i.e. translation) of the Bible with a huge grain of salt as well.

One of my favorite quotes concerning Christianity/Atheism is something I heard while listening to DC Talks's "Jesus Freak".

The single greatest cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyles. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.

I am not sure that truer words have ever been spoken.

Whether or not the bible permits incest...it's proven to be unhealthy and provides great risks, often times leaving the off spring of such unions with physical and mental deformities. When you consider that we're supposedly using less than 10% of our brains...I guess the idea of cousin on cousin in our deep history would explain much about our present day issues. :banging::chuckle:

:chuckle:

Please don't get me wrong. I truly believe in blind faith as well. However, I understand the distinctions between a faith, and debating and discussing within academia.

On the issue of plurality, the hebrew generic word for God is elohim, which is plural for God. it is used in many different types of context, include many gods, and the God. The way we know the singular translation is also correct is the when it is connected as , יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֧ים The covenant name for God, that is, the personal name given to Moses on Sinai according to the narrative, is יְהוָ֨ה which is a Proper Noun with a singular ending (usually translated in english as LORD). The general word for god in this text is אֱלֹהִ֧ים which is a plural noun (usually translatd in english as gods or God). Thus, you have a singular noun attached to a plural noun, with the Proper name being singular.

That is why, when אֱלֹהִ֧ים is referring to God, it is singular in English, but when referring to other gods, it is plural. It also agrees with the rest of the Tanak, speciifically, "Hear, oh Israel, the LORD your God is one."

Notice the phrase again, LORD your God. יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֧ים That is why there is heavy interpretational weight placed on God as singular when referring to the LORD.



When it comes to translations . . . you can trust them, as far as accuracy to the originals are concerned. There is more reason to trust what we have in our English bibles then there is of virtually any other writings up to probably the 12 or 13 the century.

The real question which can be debated (and accepted as real debate at the level of scholarship, both for those who uphold and those who do not uphold the scriptures as received today) is how the original autographs came about, and whether or not they were they are theopneustos. . . the greek word for God-written, God-spirit, or better said in english, inspired.

xfl2001fan
11-26-2008, 07:14 AM
As stated before, if the general masses were taught some of these basics, I think it would go a long way towards they type of enlightenment many of the Christian faith are looking for.

In regards to the Old Testament, many of the Jewish faith believe that they are fables/parables that may have been inspired by true events...but in the passing down of the stories (by mouth before man learned to write them down), became legends beyond the stories themselves. Many believe this because that is how they are taught. While there are some sects that don't go that route...I believe many of the more "modern" sects do prefer the mass-enlightenment route.

(I have a minor fascination with all religions...so I've done some checking up on these things...not enough to be considered a scholar...but I believe I know enough to know how to question...which I believe is why God gave us intellect.)

revefsreleets
11-26-2008, 09:38 AM
No, I did not say stuck in, I said reacting to the way Christianity is presented in Sunday school.

When I look at the narrative of the Ark, I come to it with questions conscerning textual criticism, narrative intent, authorial intent, Speach-Act theory, Canonical criticism, etc.

To put it plainly, I just wonder why it seems your not engaging the academy of theology, and instead engaging the beliefs as taught in Sunday school?

Just as higher order mathematics are based upon scaling up from basic math, I think it's easier to "start small". It's not that I'm in capable of debating on a high inetllectual plane on this subject, it's more that I'm afraid we cannot. My position is that calculus cannot work if you refuse to accept that 1+1=2. The argument I'm making here is based un fundamental beliefs. I don't think the bible is meant to be taken literally. You do. I don't believe it's the direct word of God. You do.

We can't ever speak the same language, therefore we can never engage in high-level debate on this subject. To me, applying textual criticism, narrative intent, authorial intent, Speach-Act theory, Canonical criticism, etc. to something like Noah's Ark doesn't make any sense, because it's applying sense to nonsense, reason to unreason, logic to illogic.

Preacher
11-26-2008, 03:42 PM
Just as higher order mathematics are based upon scaling up from basic math, I think it's easier to "start small". It's not that I'm in capable of debating on a high inetllectual plane on this subject, it's more that I'm afraid we cannot. My position is that calculus cannot work if you refuse to accept that 1+1=2. The argument I'm making here is based un fundamental beliefs. I don't think the bible is meant to be taken literally. You do. I don't believe it's the direct word of God. You do.

We can't ever speak the same language, therefore we can never engage in high-level debate on this subject. To me, applying textual criticism, narrative intent, authorial intent, Speach-Act theory, Canonical criticism, etc. to something like Noah's Ark doesn't make any sense, because it's applying sense to nonsense, reason to unreason, logic to illogic.

See, that is where I think some reading in Neo-orthodoxy and post-liberalism would be interesting for you. Barth, for instance holds that the narratives only have meaning as they are appropriated to your life by God. There is no necessity of historicity because inspiration only comes as God meets you through the scriptures. Bultmann argues that it is in the story of the church that the resurrection happened, not in reality, yet, the story of the church is all that is necessary because through it salvation is attained (I am FAR, FAR away from this idea, however, I do believe he will be in heaven).

Then you have other who take a completely different view, stating that the scriptural narrative is the importance, not the event. Thus, text determines meaning regardless of what the event is.

The question underlying this, is what elements do you propose which denies Noah's Ark? When there are enough narraties throughout the world to support that type of story?

revefsreleets
11-28-2008, 09:12 AM
The question underlying this, is what elements do you propose which denies Noah's Ark? When there are enough narraties throughout the world to support that type of story?



I'm not sure I follow. I'm denying Noah's Ark in the same EXACT sense that I refute Santa Claus. Children believe strongly in the existence of Santa and their whole Christmas revolves around the central theme of a fat man in a red suit doing imposible things. Their faith is utter and complete, in the face of all contrary evidence, in spite of the fact that what Santa is proported to be capable of is physically impossible. I definitely do not deny the fact that most children believe in Santa. I don't think they are wrong to be believe in Santa. But that isn't the important bit...when children get older and learn how the world really works, when they start grasping concepts like the cat walking behind the wall doesn't mean the cat no longer exists, when the start thinking rationally and they dispel their own myths, THAT is the important part of the Santa myth. It's fun fantasy and it serves a purpose, and then it is set aside as all childish notions inevitably are.



But what people who interpret the bible literally attempt to do is bend the rules. They cling to the childish and rewrite the rule books to make it fit. It's incredibly frustarting to continually debate this because you have spent a whole life being trained to debate this from your perspective, a perspective that has been saturated with this mythology. These things are true to you NO MATTER WHAT. I like the "moving mountains" reference. If you believe strongly enough in your faith that you can move a mountain, and you convince yourself that you actually DID move a mountain, my empirical evidence showing the contrary will never dissuade you of your notion that you did, in fact, move the mountain. The mountain moved in your mind, therefore the mountain moved.



Back to Noah and his Ark. My view is that the story is an allegorical statement about faith, sacrifice and consequences. I have also completely skipped over the whole thing about how this supposed loving and forgiving God could be so bloodthirsty that he, once again, feels compelled to wipe out most of the human race. Why does God possess so many obvious human flaws? I digress...the point is, of the 3 views (absolute literal interpretation, complete disbelief, and Noah's Ark as parable), only the last two have a basis in reality. No rules have to be bent (or broken) for the latter, and because I don't have to adapt to the teachings of one particular denomination of one faith, I'm not forced to move backwards from the conclusion that I was taught as a baby, and I'm free to draw my own conclusions about what Noah's Ark really represents.

Preacher
11-28-2008, 11:15 PM
I'm not sure I follow. I'm denying Noah's Ark in the same EXACT sense that I refute Santa Claus. Children believe strongly in the existence of Santa and their whole Christmas revolves around the central theme of a fat man in a red suit doing imposible things. Their faith is utter and complete, in the face of all contrary evidence, in spite of the fact that what Santa is proported to be capable of is physically impossible. I definitely do not deny the fact that most children believe in Santa. I don't think they are wrong to be believe in Santa. But that isn't the important bit...when children get older and learn how the world really works, when they start grasping concepts like the cat walking behind the wall doesn't mean the cat no longer exists, when the start thinking rationally and they dispel their own myths, THAT is the important part of the Santa myth. It's fun fantasy and it serves a purpose, and then it is set aside as all childish notions inevitably are.



But what people who interpret the bible literally attempt to do is bend the rules. They cling to the childish and rewrite the rule books to make it fit. It's incredibly frustarting to continually debate this because you have spent a whole life being trained to debate this from your perspective, a perspective that has been saturated with this mythology. These things are true to you NO MATTER WHAT. I like the "moving mountains" reference. If you believe strongly enough in your faith that you can move a mountain, and you convince yourself that you actually DID move a mountain, my empirical evidence showing the contrary will never dissuade you of your notion that you did, in fact, move the mountain. The mountain moved in your mind, therefore the mountain moved.



Back to Noah and his Ark. My view is that the story is an allegorical statement about faith, sacrifice and consequences. I have also completely skipped over the whole thing about how this supposed loving and forgiving God could be so bloodthirsty that he, once again, feels compelled to wipe out most of the human race. Why does God possess so many obvious human flaws? I digress...the point is, of the 3 views (absolute literal interpretation, complete disbelief, and Noah's Ark as parable), only the last two have a basis in reality. No rules have to be bent (or broken) for the latter, and because I don't have to adapt to the teachings of one particular denomination of one faith, I'm not forced to move backwards from the conclusion that I was taught as a baby, and I'm free to draw my own conclusions about what Noah's Ark really represents.


The problem with that, is it is all based on your perspective of what you feel is absolute and not absolute. You claim to deny foundationalism, but have just used foundationalist arguments to deny an ancient narrative which neither of us have first hand knowledge of. Furthermore, there are secondary questions of corroborating narratives throughout the world which lend's credence to the flood narrative as a metanarrative with epistomological questions abounding.

In truth, by denying santa clause, you have shown that your foundations are flawed. Santa does (or did) exist. he basis for the Christian-era Santa Claus is Bishop Nicholas of Smyrna (Izmir), in what is now Turkey. Nicholas lived in the 4th century A.D. He was very rich, generous, and loving toward children. Often he gave joy to poor children by throwing gifts in through their windows. The Orthodox Church later raised St. Nicholas, miracle worker, to a position of great esteem. It was in his honor that Russia's oldest church, for example, was built. For its part, the Roman Catholic Church honored Nicholas as one who helped children and the poor. St. Nicholas became the patron saint of children and seafarers. His name day is December 6th.
In the Protestant areas of central and northern Germany, St. Nicholas later became known as der Weinachtsmann. In England he came to be called Father Christmas. St. Nicholas made his way to the United States with Dutch immigrants, and began to be referred to as Santa Claus.


The issue is how much fiction has been built up around the fact. The same question arises about Noah's Ark. I tend to believe the narrative of the text is true to the account, but the traditions modern Christians place UPON the account are fictional. There is, in all honesty, no reason to assume the flood was over the entire earth. The Hebrew word may be used to designate the whole earth, but also used, quite a bit, to designate the ground, the land, etc. As such, the noahic flood could very well be a regional flood. If you look at the region, some will argue that it is the very episode where the Atlantic ocean broke through the African/European connection now known as the strait of Gibralter creating the Mediterrainian sea. While I personally won't go that far (I don't like the inherent conclusion jumping of the argument), there is nothing within the Torah, nor in science to deny it's reality. Furthermore, it still leaves open the ability of God to bring about the situation to acheive his greater results.

The question then, is if you deny the narrative of the Ark because everything stated above still doesn't make sense, or because you deny immanency (I am assuming you don't deny God's existence since you said in another thread that you accept God as the beginning of the universe, the first mover, sorta speak).

revefsreleets
11-30-2008, 04:26 PM
I deny that the narrative of the Ark is factual. I deny most of the bible being factual. I don't think God had much to do with the bible. Nor did he have much to do with the construction of the Torah or Talmud.

I think God created man. I think Man then re-created God in our image, an extremely flawed and contradictory image. And we have had nothing but problems since.

SteelCurtain7
12-06-2008, 04:16 PM
"Giving up on God?" :rolleyes:

"Never!" Alfred Pennyworth, butler to The Bat

Makaveli
12-06-2008, 06:40 PM
"I love your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Preacher
12-06-2008, 07:43 PM
I deny that the narrative of the Ark is factual. I deny most of the bible being factual. I don't think God had much to do with the bible. Nor did he have much to do with the construction of the Torah or Talmud.

I think God created man. I think Man then re-created God in our image, an extremely flawed and contradictory image. And we have had nothing but problems since.

So it would be fair to say that in reality, your a deist. would you agree with that?

Preacher
12-06-2008, 07:46 PM
"I love your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Not surprising. Christians are human beings with just as many screw ups and problems as everyone else. However, you also need to distinguish between those who are Christians from those who simply partake in christendom. Those are two VERY different issues.

SteelCurtain7
12-06-2008, 08:30 PM
Makaveli, sometimes that's true; sometimes it's not. That statement is not necessarily axiomatic.

Leftoverhard
12-07-2008, 12:29 PM
"I love your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

A-men.

Preacher
12-07-2008, 01:12 PM
A-men.

So how do you think Christians should be? Because to be honest, I have noticed a lot of misconceptions concerning how Christ was.

revefsreleets
12-07-2008, 06:56 PM
So it would be fair to say that in reality, your a deist. would you agree with that?

No. I'm not anything. And that is the point. Why do I have to be something? Labeling is a big part of my whole argument. I don't think God labels or pigeonholes. Humans do that.

Preacher
12-07-2008, 07:46 PM
No. I'm not anything. And that is the point. Why do I have to be something? Labeling is a big part of my whole argument. I don't think God labels or pigeonholes. Humans do that.


I ask the question because if you say yes, then we don't have to take the time to define every aspect. There are a set of belifs that go with it, and it takes a smaller amount of time to define what you don't beleieve.

That is all. It isn't about pigeon-holing anyone. It is about helping to understand where each other stands.

Kinda like If I said I was a rhino republican. You would know that I was a moderate, socially somewhat left, financially a tad conservative etc. etc.

It just helps to shorthand the conversation.

revefsreleets
12-07-2008, 08:10 PM
I ask the question because if you say yes, then we don't have to take the time to define every aspect. There are a set of belifs that go with it, and it takes a smaller amount of time to define what you don't beleieve.

That is all. It isn't about pigeon-holing anyone. It is about helping to understand where each other stands.

Kinda like If I said I was a rhino republican. You would know that I was a moderate, socially somewhat left, financially a tad conservative etc. etc.

It just helps to shorthand the conversation.

I want to make sure that you are aware that my answers are also for a wider audience than just you. People read. They (I hope) think about what we say and type and do their own thinking. That knowledge HEAVILY influences my responses.

Preacher
12-07-2008, 08:20 PM
I want to make sure that you are aware that my answers are also for a wider audience than just you. People read. They (I hope) think about what we say and type and do their own thinking. That knowledge HEAVILY influences my responses.
I understand... I am usually careful of that as well.

Its just that at times, it is hard to be aware of every nuance if the nuances have to be typed.... you know?

Someday we really need to do this over coffee. . . or go on the road and sell tickets!

revefsreleets
12-07-2008, 08:25 PM
I understand... I am usually careful of that as well.

Its just that at times, it is hard to be aware of every nuance if the nuances have to be typed.... you know?

Someday we really need to do this over coffee. . . or go on the road and sell tickets!


AMEN (In the non-Earnest Angley-type-way)!

I believe in God. But it's a personal thing with me. Almost private.

Leftoverhard
12-08-2008, 10:10 AM
So how do you think Christians should be? Because to be honest, I have noticed a lot of misconceptions concerning how Christ was.

Exactly!