Religion: personal ethical system vs. means of social control

[Jobar]

Thinking about some of the arguments being made in the 'Lisa's Homework' thread, it occurs to me that we may be able to distinguish liberal from fundamentalist Christians if we differentiate 'inner' belief from 'outer' belief.

It would seem that liberal believers are all about the internalization of their faith. They see it as a means of personal, not societal, transformation; "the kingdom of heaven lies within you."

The fundamentalists see their faith as a means of transforming the world; these sorts want to use their religion to change the world around them so as to reflect their conception of the good. They tend to be far more evangelical, and to use whatever power they can get in the real world to enforce the tenets of their religion on everyone, members of their faith or not. They see religion primarily in terms of social control; to them religion is something to be projected outwardly, not held inwardly.

These two contrasting ways of being religious aren't mutually exclusive, of course. But we might find these poles useful in defining whether a believer is more liberal, or more fundamentalist.

I'm interested if the believers here find this a valid way of thinking about the difference.

[Barefoot Bree]

I know, you asked for input from beleivers, but I got here first!

I think it's very valid, Jobar, but I think you may want to ditch the terms "liberal" and "fundamentalist" - they already have too many definitions and connotations attached. Though I do think that as descriptions, they do mostly fit those respective groups.

[Jobar]

In 2007 I started a thread on II; Liberal/Moderate/Conservative/Fundamentalist: How do we tell? (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=182422) The conclusions there were less than satisfactory; essentially we *couldn't* tell, except by the way each individual believer identified themselves.

There was some discussion there about different axes along which we might try measuring a person's belief, and from that judge the appropriate description. I don't recall if 'external vs. internal' was one axis, but it should be, I think.

[Barefoot Bree]

It's the battle of the II threads!!

I started one, too: Description of Fundamentalism (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=106020), which came up with a sort of checklist to rate how "fundamentalist" a given church or individual is. It included a couple of points that related to this internal/external debate.

[lpetrich]

Religion as social control has a certain logical conclusion: Plato's Royal Lie. The citizens of his Republic were to believe in a religion that Plato invented for them, a religion that he considered false yet useful as social control.

It makes me so happy to think about Plato, because he was so breathtakingly honest about that. I get VERY annoyed at the evasion of that premise that I so often see. If one is supposed to believe in some religion for some reason other than truth, then it could just as well be a false religion.

Plato was not exactly alone in Greco-Roman antiquity; I've seen similar views expressed by Polybius, Strabo, and Livy. More recently, Niccolo Machiavelli (yes, that infamous one) expressed similar views. If anyone is interested, I'll quote them, to show the sort of things that they had said.


Turning to personal religions, I know of someone who invented one for himself because he was being driven nuts by his fear of death. I even recall him going on record as saying that he was being deliberately irrational for the sake of his sanity.

[Lisa0315]

I think that is a fair assessment, Jobar.

From what I know of liberal Christians, they are not as vocal or concerned about FORCING people to their beliefs. Instead, their creed, and this was even the name of a Christian Forums congregation, "Whosoever Will May Come"

Liberals are about welcoming, love, compassion, and no barriers to God.

Fundamentalists are about groups, rules, and judgment.

Yet, there are extremists within the liberal groups too. I have literally seen liberals in the WWMC forum welcome Satanics who believe they are serving God from the left-hand path. (Hard to explain)

Moderates are the silent majority, and it is a shame. If I have to be labeled, I am probably a moderate, not fundie or liberal. This means that I do believe some of the fundie doctrine, but I will err on the side of compassion.

When I was part of the Conservative forum at CF, and even briefly on staff, I would beg people to be kinder, and they ended up turning on me. The love commands as I perceive them are not how Conservatives/Fundies perceive them. They believe that loving a sinner means telling them that they are going to hell, and the amount of gleefulness I have seen in some posts, tell me that person is hoping to be warming his hands over the fire.

Jesus had a Word for them, and it went something like this: Depart from me. I never knew you.

There is NO WAY, no way, I tell you, that hatred can ever be right with God. NO WAY!

Lisa

[Jobar]

Just from curiosity, Lisa, was the WWMC forum open to atheists who defended atheism? I thought that General Apologetics was the only CF forum like that, for a long time.

[Jobar]

This way of defining a person's religion should be very helpful to us unbelievers, also. For those who hold their beliefs internally- who think one should pray in private, and who won't try to force their beliefs on anyone unwilling- I think that the great majority of skeptics will show considerable acceptance. We may argue their philosophy on boards like this, but in the larger world we will strongly defend their right to believe as they will; essentially, they're granting us the same consideration, so what damage to us?

OTOH, the 'external' believers will always try to push us to believe as they do, if that's within their power. They aren't willing to grant us (or even believers in other faiths) the right of self-determination; this is the sort we have to constantly oppose, who would use worldly power to enforce unworldly belief.

I think that we unbelievers should be careful to avoid attacking the 'internal believers' so strongly that, in reaction, they feel forced to make common cause with the 'external believers'. We should make clear our support of freedom of belief, and conscience; and that liberal believers have far less to fear from us, than they do from their more militant and fundamentalist fellows.

[Hevvin Machine]

These two contrasting ways of being religious aren't mutually exclusive, of course. But we might find these poles useful in defining whether a believer is more liberal, or more fundamentalist.

I'm interested if the believers here find this a valid way of thinking about the difference. Valid, yes. It is a strong element, but it's important to recognize that they are not mutually exclusive. In some contexts they are not even relevant.

I think there is a lot of confirmation bias here, for one thing. A self-described fundamentalist Christian arguing for Creation Science probably gets more notice from skeptics than a fundamentalist Christian arguing for aid to African AIDS victims. Liberal Christians arguing for equal marriage rights probably won't phrase it in Biblical terms in places that most SC members will notice. That doesn't mean they don't. Some of us interpret the first few verses of Matthew 19 as an admonition to get married and stay married to the best of your ability instead of a limitation on marriage to one man and one woman.

Since I think people should get married and stay married to the best of their ability I support laws that support that. It's an external response, per the OP. But it isn't usually described as "fundamentalist".

Hev

[David B]

These two contrasting ways of being religious aren't mutually exclusive, of course. But we might find these poles useful in defining whether a believer is more liberal, or more fundamentalist.

I'm interested if the believers here find this a valid way of thinking about the difference. Valid, yes. It is a strong element, but it's important to recognize that they are not mutually exclusive. In some contexts they are not even relevant.

I think there is a lot of confirmation bias here, for one thing. A self-described fundamentalist Christian arguing for Creation Science probably gets more notice from skeptics than a fundamentalist Christian arguing for aid to African AIDS victims. Liberal Christians arguing for equal marriage rights probably won't phrase it in Biblical terms in places that most SC members will notice. That doesn't mean they don't. Some of us interpret the first few verses of Matthew 19 as an admonition to get married and stay married to the best of your ability instead of a limitation on marriage to one man and one woman.

Since I think people should get married and stay married to the best of their ability I support laws that support that. It's an external response, per the OP. But it isn't usually described as "fundamentalist".

Hev

My bold. What sort of laws would you support?

They can range from giving tax breaks to married couples, through making divorce difficult and expensive, to outlawing divorce and stoning adulterers.

David

[Hevvin Machine]

Since I think people should get married and stay married to the best of their ability I support laws that support that. It's an external response, per the OP. But it isn't usually described as "fundamentalist".

Hev

My bold. What sort of laws would you support?

They can range from giving tax breaks to married couples, through making divorce difficult and expensive, to outlawing divorce and stoning adulterers.

David

I've only got a minute, since I am already dressed and ready to go indulge in Easter Vigil Mass.
I don't particularly support tax-breaks based on marital status. I do support automatic medical power of attorney and such. I don't think divorce should be difficult so much as requiring the parties to demonstrate that they will be responsible for the previously existing commitments, mainly the children. Making it more difficult, as opposed to more expensive, would work for me. Making marriage more difficult would also be a good thing, in the sense of requiring candidates for state recognition to demonstrate at least the level of awareness and competency needed to get a drivers license. I also think that churches should have even higher standards before granting their blessings on a relationship or such gravitas, but I see no way to do that without violating the church state separation.
I personally think that both the church and the state should raise their standards of marriage rather than making divorce easy and irresponsible. Require people to take vows and do what can be done to make them understand those vows before they take them.

Rather short and pointed, sorry I'm late for something more important to me than SC. I'll be back, eventually, to discuss this more in depth if you would like. Tomorrow's Easter, so I probably won't be back before Monday or so.
Hev

Happy Easter or "dead jew on a stick day", whichever makes you happier!
Hev

[Lisa0315]

Just from curiosity, Lisa, was the WWMC forum open to atheists who defended atheism? I thought that General Apologetics was the only CF forum like that, for a long time.

Welcomed, yes. Frequented, probably not. Conservatives would get an occasional atheist, but they would get reported so quickly it would make your head spin.

There was a brief period in which congregationals were open to everyone per Erwin, but then they were allowed to make sub-areas that were closed to members only. Atheists didn't bother people in Congregationals though.

There was a great deal of outrage when Erwin allowed Raven on staff, and Glass_Soul worked diligently on the new rules. Seems like there was at least one other atheist on staff, but I can't remember now. They were only allowed to be on staff for the administrative areas, not the real forums.

Prior to that, there was a morality statement, and I have heard that people's real lives were called into question and staff were booted based on mere heresay. So, I have heard...

Lisa

[4321lynx]

Ipetrich said

If one is supposed to believe in some religion for some reason other than truth, then it could just as well be a false religion.


Are there any other but false religions?

[Hentenza]

[QUOTE=Jobar;22741]Thinking about some of the arguments being made in the 'Lisa's Homework' thread, it occurs to me that we may be able to distinguish liberal from fundamentalist Christians if we differentiate 'inner' belief from 'outer' belief.

Nah! That basic difference is that one kind believes in scripture and the other believes whatever floats their boat.

It would seem that liberal believers are all about the internalization of their faith. They see it as a means of personal, not societal, transformation; "the kingdom of heaven lies within you."

And then you can spot a liberal law maker a mile away.

The fundamentalists see their faith as a means of transforming the world; these sorts want to use their religion to change the world around them so as to reflect their conception of the good. They tend to be far more evangelical, and to use whatever power they can get in the real world to enforce the tenets of their religion on everyone, members of their faith or not. They see religion primarily in terms of social control; to them religion is something to be projected outwardly, not held inwardly.

These two contrasting ways of being religious aren't mutually exclusive, of course. But we might find these poles useful in defining whether a believer is more liberal, or more fundamentalist.

I'm interested if the believers here find this a valid way of thinking about the difference.



Fundamentalists are not after social control but after preserving the traditional views and values. Personally, my only Christian commitment is to spread the gospel. Those that listen fine and those that do not fine too. Belief can not be forced upon others since that is contradictory to the great commission mandate. There are some that do though but only to carve another notch on their bible. They have elevated themselves to God's position. On the other hand, I have seen liberals do the same. Pity.

[Redshirt]

Welcome to SecCafe, Hentenza! :wave:


It would seem that liberal believers are all about the internalization of their faith. They see it as a means of personal, not societal, transformation; "the kingdom of heaven lies within you."

The fundamentalists see their faith as a means of transforming the world; these sorts want to use their religion to change the world around them so as to reflect their conception of the good. They tend to be far more evangelical, and to use whatever power they can get in the real world to enforce the tenets of their religion on everyone, members of their faith or not. They see religion primarily in terms of social control; to them religion is something to be projected outwardly, not held inwardly.

This isn't quite accurate. Many liberal Christians do indeed externalize their theology, but with respect to social change rather than spiritual change.

The Social Gospel

The Social Gospel movement is a Protestant Christian intellectual movement that was most prominent in the late 19th century and early 20th century. The movement applied Christian ethics to social problems, especially poverty, inequality, liquor, crime, racial tensions, slums, bad hygiene, child labor, weak labor unions, poor schools, and the danger of war. Above all they opposed rampant individualism and called for a socially aware religion. Theologically, the Social Gospel leaders were overwhelmingly post-millennialist. That is because they believed the Second Coming could not happen until humankind rid itself of social evils by human effort.[1] Social Gospel leaders were predominantly associated with the liberal wing of the Progressive Movement and most were theologically liberal.

Evangelical or fundamentalist Protestants might externalize with respect to witnessing and proselytizing, but they also internalize. They believe that salvation is a spiritual matter that is deep personal (i.e. to be "born again") as opposed to the Catholic Church that emphasizes tradition and the church institution.

[Hentenza]

Welcome to SecCafe, Hentenza! :wave:

Thanks Redshirt.:)

Lisa invited me so I had to come.:D

[David B]

Good to see you here, Hentenza.

I notice that you specifically say 'spread the gospel'.

So where would you stand on the literal truth of the OT?

I ask because I don't want to base any future discussions with you on a misconception of your views.

David

[sohy]

Here's my views, concerning the two groups of Xians. They are based on my upbringing in an evangelical home, my brief period of self identifying as a liberal Xian, as well as a life time of experience with Xians, as an outspoken atheist. I also learned a few things from reading some of Cornell West's writings. He is my very favorite liberal Xian intellectual.

Fundamentalists = hardcore metaphysics They have the only truth and the only way to escape the wrath of god. When they die, they go to heaven, and the rest of us heathens go to hell to be tortured forever and ever. They tend to see things in black and white. They rationalize all the contradictions in the Bible, while claiming that every word is the truth. While this group does some charity work, it usually has strings attached. They will help you out, but they will also evangelize you at the same time. Fundy churches usually spend most of their money on missionary work either directly or indirectly.

Liberal = soft metaphysics. They believe that there may be a place that we go to when we die. Your destination is based on what kind of person you were, not on what beliefs you hold. They don't take much of the Bible very literally, and some will throw out parts that they think should have never been included as scripture. In other words, they think for themselves rather than follow dogma blindly. They do a lot of charity work and it usually has no strings attached. If it's a rich congregation, they often are large contributors to local food banks, free clinics etc. They may tell you they do it in the name of Jesus, but they don't really care what you believe. For example, a local liberal Xian acquaintance of mine, said she thought it was cool when I told her I was an atheist. I've never had a fundy tell me that when revealing my atheism. It's usually they will pray for me, or they will try to preach to me.

Not all fundies are into social control of those outside their own group. I think this is a relatively recent development. I know it wasn't like that in the days of my youth. Back then, the fundy evangelicals I knew were strong supporters of the separation of church and state. My parents were in support of removing school prayer, for example. They believed they were separate from the world and shouldn't try and get involved with changing government. That's seems to be changed now although I think we may circle back to the way it was as the fundy movement loses it's impetus.

[Criada]

I think that is is very difficult to distinguish 'liberal' versus "conservative' or 'fundamentalist' in an international forum.
In the UK I have often been described as a fundamentalist, and am certainly considered conservative in that I do believe in the inerrancy of scripture. However, on CF, which seems to be largely North American, I was unwelcome by many in the 'conservative Christian' forum because of my 'liberal' beliefs.
So labels can vary, and all, I think, are largely comparative.
The major difference between the UK and US interpretations of conservative is in its political implications. In Britain one can be conservative in one's faith without being politically so, and no one political party is associated with Christianity as such. In the states, as far as I can see, the two are very much more bound up together, and political campaigning seems to be as much on religious as on political issues.

[Lisa0315]

I think that is is very difficult to distinguish 'liberal' versus "conservative' or 'fundamentalist' in an international forum.
In the UK I have often been described as a fundamentalist, and am certainly considered conservative in that I do believe in the inerrancy of scripture. However, on CF, which seems to be largely North American, I was unwelcome by many in the 'conservative Christian' forum because of my 'liberal' beliefs.
So labels can vary, and all, I think, are largely comparative.
The major difference between the UK and US interpretations of conservative is in its political implications. In Britain one can be conservative in one's faith without being politically so, and no one political party is associated with Christianity as such. In the states, as far as I can see, the two are very much more bound up together, and political campaigning seems to be as much on religious as on political issues.

Very good points, Cri. I am liberal compared to CF-ers, (and the moral majority) I am moderate compared to US Christians. I didn't even know the labels until CF, and I have voted as often for the "liberal" candidate as I have for the "Conservative".

Conservatives would strongly disagree, but they have done more to desensitize the average American to the things of God than anyone else. What point is there in believing if Fred Phelps and his ilk is how God is represented to many people? If people's idea of Christianity is funeral protesting, abortion bombing, and gay-hating, who would in their right mind believe?

Lisa

[David B]

I think that is is very difficult to distinguish 'liberal' versus "conservative' or 'fundamentalist' in an international forum.
In the UK I have often been described as a fundamentalist, and am certainly considered conservative in that I do believe in the inerrancy of scripture. However, on CF, which seems to be largely North American, I was unwelcome by many in the 'conservative Christian' forum because of my 'liberal' beliefs.
So labels can vary, and all, I think, are largely comparative.
The major difference between the UK and US interpretations of conservative is in its political implications. In Britain one can be conservative in one's faith without being politically so, and no one political party is associated with Christianity as such. In the states, as far as I can see, the two are very much more bound up together, and political campaigning seems to be as much on religious as on political issues.

Very good points, Cri. I am liberal compared to CF-ers, (and the moral majority) I am moderate compared to US Christians. I didn't even know the labels until CF, and I have voted as often for the "liberal" candidate as I have for the "Conservative".

Conservatives would strongly disagree, but they have done more to desensitize the average American to the things of God than anyone else. What point is there in believing if Fred Phelps and his ilk is how God is represented to many people? If people's idea of Christianity is funeral protesting, abortion bombing, and gay-hating, who would in their right mind believe?

Lisa

As someone who sees faith as pretty much a bad thing, I do see Phelps as something of an asset, though on balance I think the harm he does generally outweighs the good he does in making people question the value of faith.

The same applying to the current Pope.

David (desperately resists temptation re the final few words of your post)

[Lisa0315]

I think that is is very difficult to distinguish 'liberal' versus "conservative' or 'fundamentalist' in an international forum.
In the UK I have often been described as a fundamentalist, and am certainly considered conservative in that I do believe in the inerrancy of scripture. However, on CF, which seems to be largely North American, I was unwelcome by many in the 'conservative Christian' forum because of my 'liberal' beliefs.
So labels can vary, and all, I think, are largely comparative.
The major difference between the UK and US interpretations of conservative is in its political implications. In Britain one can be conservative in one's faith without being politically so, and no one political party is associated with Christianity as such. In the states, as far as I can see, the two are very much more bound up together, and political campaigning seems to be as much on religious as on political issues.

Very good points, Cri. I am liberal compared to CF-ers, (and the moral majority) I am moderate compared to US Christians. I didn't even know the labels until CF, and I have voted as often for the "liberal" candidate as I have for the "Conservative".

Conservatives would strongly disagree, but they have done more to desensitize the average American to the things of God than anyone else. What point is there in believing if Fred Phelps and his ilk is how God is represented to many people? If people's idea of Christianity is funeral protesting, abortion bombing, and gay-hating, who would in their right mind believe?

Lisa

As someone who sees faith as pretty much a bad thing, I do see Phelps as something of an asset, though on balance I think the harm he does generally outweighs the good he does in making people question the value of faith.

The same applying to the current Pope.

David (desperately resists temptation re the final few words of your post)

*snicker* :evil: Who said I was in my right mind anyway?

Lisa

[4321lynx]

All will be well. When the merciful messiah comes next, he won't be much worse than your average merciful Taliban.

[Hentenza]

Good to see you here, Hentenza.

I notice that you specifically say 'spread the gospel'.

So where would you stand on the literal truth of the OT?

I ask because I don't want to base any future discussions with you on a misconception of your views.

David

Thanks for the welcome David.

I do believe in a literal OT, however, I am not YEC. The OT is Christological and necessary for a full understanding of the NT. :)

[Hentenza]

Very good points, Cri. I am liberal compared to CF-ers, (and the moral majority) I am moderate compared to US Christians. I didn't even know the labels until CF, and I have voted as often for the "liberal" candidate as I have for the "Conservative".

Conservatives would strongly disagree, but they have done more to desensitize the average American to the things of God than anyone else. What point is there in believing if Fred Phelps and his ilk is how God is represented to many people? If people's idea of Christianity is funeral protesting, abortion bombing, and gay-hating, who would in their right mind believe?

Lisa

How is Phelps representative of Christianity? There have been many cults in the past that resulted in hurting people which is contrary to the message of Christ. Frankly, associating Phelps to Conservative Christians is like associating Charles Manson with mother Theresa. Polar opposites.

[Lisa0315]

Very good points, Cri. I am liberal compared to CF-ers, (and the moral majority) I am moderate compared to US Christians. I didn't even know the labels until CF, and I have voted as often for the "liberal" candidate as I have for the "Conservative".

Conservatives would strongly disagree, but they have done more to desensitize the average American to the things of God than anyone else. What point is there in believing if Fred Phelps and his ilk is how God is represented to many people? If people's idea of Christianity is funeral protesting, abortion bombing, and gay-hating, who would in their right mind believe?

Lisa

How is Phelps representative of Christianity? There have been many cults in the past that resulted in hurting people which is contrary to the message of Christ. Frankly, associating Phelps to Conservative Christians is like associating Charles Manson with mother Theresa. Polar opposites.

To those who do not know the difference, Phelps is a representative of Conservative Christianity, as was Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. Phelps is the most notoriously evil, but Falwell and Robertson have both blamed incidents like Katrina and 9-11 on the acceptance of GLBTs in America, and for the murder of the unborn.

My personal belief is that we live in the age of grace, and while natural disasters may be a portent of things to come, they are not acts of judgment. Nor was 9-11, a judgment of God.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

Very good points, Cri. I am liberal compared to CF-ers, (and the moral majority) I am moderate compared to US Christians. I didn't even know the labels until CF, and I have voted as often for the "liberal" candidate as I have for the "Conservative".

Conservatives would strongly disagree, but they have done more to desensitize the average American to the things of God than anyone else. What point is there in believing if Fred Phelps and his ilk is how God is represented to many people? If people's idea of Christianity is funeral protesting, abortion bombing, and gay-hating, who would in their right mind believe?

Lisa

How is Phelps representative of Christianity? There have been many cults in the past that resulted in hurting people which is contrary to the message of Christ. Frankly, associating Phelps to Conservative Christians is like associating Charles Manson with mother Theresa. Polar opposites.

To those who do not know the difference, Phelps is a representative of Conservative Christianity, as was Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. Phelps is the most notoriously evil, but Falwell and Robertson have both blamed incidents like Katrina and 9-11 on the acceptance of GLBTs in America, and for the murder of the unborn.

My personal belief is that we live in the age of grace, and while natural disasters may be a portent of things to come, they are not acts of judgment. Nor was 9-11, a judgment of God.

Lisa

Phelps is NOT a representative of anyone but himself. He does not represent conservative Christians. That is simple ignorance. Did Jim Jones represent Conservative Christians also. How about the nut from Waco? You are taking bits of out of context statements to further your hate for conservative Christians. I wonder how objective your opinion really is.

Lisa, I was there with you in CC when you were hurt. I know what happened but you are somehow attaching all the blame to the fundies while ignoring the attacks by the fundy liberals (yes, there is such a beast). You need to stop basing your opinion of conservative Christians by what happened there. Is time to do as Christ did and forgive. I have always considered you my friend and sister in Christ.

[Lisa0315]

How is Phelps representative of Christianity? There have been many cults in the past that resulted in hurting people which is contrary to the message of Christ. Frankly, associating Phelps to Conservative Christians is like associating Charles Manson with mother Theresa. Polar opposites.

To those who do not know the difference, Phelps is a representative of Conservative Christianity, as was Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. Phelps is the most notoriously evil, but Falwell and Robertson have both blamed incidents like Katrina and 9-11 on the acceptance of GLBTs in America, and for the murder of the unborn.

My personal belief is that we live in the age of grace, and while natural disasters may be a portent of things to come, they are not acts of judgment. Nor was 9-11, a judgment of God.

Lisa

Phelps is NOT a representative of anyone but himself. He does not represent conservative Christians. That is simple ignorance. Did Jim Jones represent Conservative Christians also. How about the nut from Waco? You are taking bits of out of context statements to further your hate for conservative Christians. I wonder how objective your opinion really is.

Lisa, I was there with you in CC when you were hurt. I know what happened but you are somehow attaching all the blame to the fundies while ignoring the attacks by the fundy liberals (yes, there is such a beast). You need to stop basing your opinion of conservative Christians by what happened there. Is time to do as Christ did and forgive. I have always considered you my friend and sister in Christ.

Oh, boy, Hen. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with me. I wondered how long it would take though. *rolls eyes* Please save your concern. I really don't need it as I am better than I have ever been in my life.

As for my aversion to fundamentalisim, that is nothing new, nor does it all stem from my experience with Christian Forums.

Now, back to the subject.

Fred Phelps claims to be a Christian. Jim Jones and the Waco dude didn't. They formed their own religions and claimed to be the Messiah. That is an attempt to compare apples and oranges.

I gave you Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Those are all recent and contemporary representatives of American Christianity. They are the most famous, the most powerful, and the best funded. Falwell, being dead of course, but in his lifetime, he influenced Presidents, okay? Are you going to honestly say that these three do not in the minds of the average person represent mainstream Christianity in America? Pahleese!

Each of them have claimed to speak for God in regards to His wrath upon GLBT's and abortionists. Now, please stick to the subject, and address why fundie Christianity isn't the biggest deterant to new believers there is.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

Tell me, how do you define fundamentalist Christianity?

BTW- I'm glad that you are doing well.:)

[Lisa0315]

Tell me, how do you define fundamentalist Christianity?

I assume you need this definition in order to answer my question?

Lets go by yours instead. Tell me how you define it and then, answer my question.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

Tell me, how do you define fundamentalist Christianity?

I assume you need this definition in order to answer my question?

Lets go by yours instead. Tell me how you define it and then, answer my question.

Lisa

That would be a deflection.:)

You are right. I don't need your definition but do need to know your perceptions. The term "fundamentalist' and even 'conservative" have become loaded terms by folks that do not understand either. I figured that if we started with a definition then we would have a starting point. You game?

[Lisa0315]

Tell me, how do you define fundamentalist Christianity?

I assume you need this definition in order to answer my question?

Lets go by yours instead. Tell me how you define it and then, answer my question.

Lisa

That would be a deflection.:)

You are right. I don't need your definition but do need to know your perceptions. The term "fundamentalist' and even 'conservative" have become loaded terms by folks that do not understand either. I figured that if we started with a definition then we would have a starting point. You game?

Fundie and Conservative are exactly the same by my definition. There IS no difference, nothing distinguishing the two. Regardless of how CF may have two independent forums, there is no difference.

Fundie doctrine is this: YEC, Fall of Man, Law was given to show the need for a Saviour, Messiah promised, Jesus, born of the virgin, Mary, was fully God and fully man, spent 3 1/2 years ministering, died on the cross for the sins of mankind in the final act of substitutionary atonement, was buried and raised on the third day. One must believe on the name of Jesus to be saved.

Fundie Christian political actions: Pro-Life, Anti-Gay Marriage, want prayer in schools, want creation taught alongside of evolution in the classroom.

Ways of accomplishing these things? Abortion clinic protests, abortion bombing and acts of terrorism, rallies against gay marriage and violence against GLBT's. Protests at the gravesites of gay servicemen. Funding of political candidates, encouragement from the pulpit on which candidate to vote for, support of war in Iraq, speaking as an authority regarding the wrath of God on the United States whenever a tragedy occurs in this country, blaming GLBT's and the murder of the unborn.

Personal Interaction of Fundies with Non-Believers: "Love" them enough to tell them the "truth", no friendship or social interaction encouraged with non-believers, questioning of faith is frowned upon. The "truth" as told in "love" is that all practicing GLBT's are going to hell and there is no such thing as a Christian gay person. This "truthful love" has driven countless numbers of young (and old) people to kill themselves or attempt it. The "loving truth" is that Jesus loves everyone but if one does not say the words, live the life, and act according to fundie standards, then, that same Jesus will send them to hell for eternity.

Have I got that about right? Is there a single thing I have written that you would deny as the truth?

Lisa

[Hentenza]

[QUOTE=Lisa0315;23345]
Fundie and Conservative are exactly the same by my definition. There IS no difference, nothing distinguishing the two. Regardless of how CF may have two independent forums, there is no difference.

Not really. For example, a Catholic can be a conservative but still believe that scripture is co-authoritative with tradition. However, a Catholic can not be a fundamentalist for the same reason. There are other differences.

Fundie doctrine is this: YEC, Fall of Man, Law was given to show the need for a Saviour, Messiah promised, Jesus, born of the virgin, Mary, was fully God and fully man, spent 3 1/2 years ministering, died on the cross for the sins of mankind in the final act of substitutionary atonement, was buried and raised on the third day. One must believe on the name of Jesus to be saved.

YEC is peripheral. I am OEC for instance. It really doesn't change the inerrancy of scripture. The rest is accurate. Now, how does the rest differ from a liberal Christian?

Fundie Christian political actions: Pro-Life, Anti-Gay Marriage, want prayer in schools, want creation taught alongside of evolution in the classroom.

Pro life and pro traditional marriage sure. Most don't really want prayer in school but want the right to pray if that is what the individual wants. Want evolution taught as the theory that it is and not as an absolute truth. There is nothing wrong with scientific criticism. Heck, that is what Texas just passed.

Ways of accomplishing these things? Abortion clinic protests, abortion bombing and acts of terrorism, rallies against gay marriage and violence against GLBT's. Protests at the gravesites of gay servicemen. Funding of political candidates, encouragement from the pulpit on which candidate to vote for, support of war in Iraq, speaking as an authority regarding the wrath of God on the United States whenever a tragedy occurs in this country, blaming GLBT's and the murder of the unborn.


There are fringe groups that will do the above but they do not represent the majority. Never has. I could turn it around and describe the violence against conservatives in California after the passing of prop 8. Am I to infer that these individuals represent the majority of liberals? of course not. That would be absurd.

Personal Interaction of Fundies with Non-Believers: "Love" them enough to tell them the "truth", no friendship or social interaction encouraged with non-believers, questioning of faith is frowned upon. The "truth" as told in "love" is that all practicing GLBT's are going to hell and there is no such thing as a Christian gay person. This "truthful love" has driven countless numbers of young (and old) people to kill themselves or attempt it. The "loving truth" is that Jesus loves everyone but if one does not say the words, live the life, and act according to fundie standards, then, that same Jesus will send them to hell for eternity.

Frankly, as a fundie, my only responsibility is to preach the gospel with patience and love. Those that listen fine and those that don't listen fine also. My responsibility is to plant seeds and water them occasionally but it is up to the individual to give it light and grow it. I can't "judge" the hearts of people only their biblical doctrines. That is what the bible teaches. Again, there are some fringe groups and individuals that do act as you describe but again they are not representative of the majority.

Have I got that about right? Is there a single thing I have written that you would deny as the truth?

Some is right, some is purely perception.

[Jobar]

Keep in mind that I've posited 'internal' and 'external' belief as the extremes of a continuum, along which we might locate individual Christians. It's not a matter of either/or, black/white, yes/no. I'd be surprised to find any one believer who personified either extreme, though some may come very close.

I keep trying to find a way of defining Christianity (and religious belief in general) so that we can talk about it without having to listen to each individual Christian (or believer) say what the word means to them. If we can't find such a definition, then to simply identify oneself as a Christian/believer is incoherent, meaningless; it tells us nothing useful about that person's actual beliefs.

Years ago I was talking with seebs (who I'm sure most everyone here knows!) on this problem- what it means to be a theist, a believer-


Language is imprecise.

But when we speak of real things, observable things, that imprecision is open to refinement. When our terms and definitions are sufficiently anchored in reality, we can be *far* more precise than our unaided senses can detect. Until we get down into realms where Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle reigns, we can focus our language precisely- and even below that level, we can make precise probabilistic statements. Because we have reality to hone away the imprecisions of our terms.

But when we try to talk about things with no anchor in reality- well, we get just what we're seeing here, and in Kang's thread. One says "God is this!" Another says "God is that!" A third says "No, God is some other thing!"

I think you're making the circular assumption that reality is the common property of things we can refine.

As both atheist and pantheist, I say: Not this. Not that. Not the other thing either.

You theists have no anchor to hold you, so you flail about meaninglessly. You are not just imprecise, for imprecision can be refined; you are incoherent, and you cannot possibly agree on any mutually acceptable definitions or attributes or properties of God (save that he is undefineable!)

You attempt to report the mental states you identify with 'God', but those states vary wildly from individual to individual; just as we see here.

If you all could agree on just a single positive thing, we doubters might be less certain that, not only is your emperor naked, he never existed in the first place save as a tale (told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!)

(That's from the thread The imprecision of language and the meaning of God. (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=2296292))

[Jobar]

Another very relevant thread from the former II is Liberal Christianity (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=189357), another place where seebs and I crossed swords. (Need to invite him here.)

[Criada]

I think there are things which absolutely define Christianity and upon which we can all agree.
Th bible says
Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Without a long debate on what it means to be 'saved', I think that almost all Christians would accept that this is the basic 'minimum requirement' of Christianity as far as belief is concerned.

[Zygote]

I keep trying to find a way of defining Christianity (and religious belief in general) so that we can talk about it without having to listen to each individual Christian (or believer) say what the word means to them. If we can't find such a definition, then to simply identify oneself as a Christian/believer is incoherent, meaningless; it tells us nothing useful about that person's actual beliefs.


How can there be a stable, common definition?

People migrate toward whichever aspects of the doctrine meet their individual needs and disregard the rest. The label of "Christianity" meets a social grouping need, but no individual in that group would actually agree with any other on all points.

But if someone wants to try to assemble a list of beliefs and tenets common to all who call themselves "Christian," I'm all ears.

I'll put on some popcorn.

[Tenebrae]

Very good points, Cri. I am liberal compared to CF-ers, (and the moral majority) I am moderate compared to US Christians. I didn't even know the labels until CF, and I have voted as often for the "liberal" candidate as I have for the "Conservative".

Conservatives would strongly disagree, but they have done more to desensitize the average American to the things of God than anyone else. What point is there in believing if Fred Phelps and his ilk is how God is represented to many people? If people's idea of Christianity is funeral protesting, abortion bombing, and gay-hating, who would in their right mind believe?

Lisa

How is Phelps representative of Christianity? There have been many cults in the past that resulted in hurting people which is contrary to the message of Christ. Frankly, associating Phelps to Conservative Christians is like associating Charles Manson with mother Theresa. Polar opposites.

Its ironic, I've noticed when a fundamentalist christian does something good, the christians all want to claim them as being representative of their religon, yet when someone like phelps comes along who still believes in the basic tenents they do, its like "na this guy isnt one of us hes a wack job"


According to their website, the doctrines of grace are best summed up by the five points of calvinism, or TULIP, they opposed fornication, homosexuality, how does that make them different to you? when they hold the same beliefs you do, if they are wrong surely that makes you wrong

[DMB]

Frankly, associating Phelps to Conservative Christians is like associating Charles Manson with mother Theresa. Polar opposites.
I find this an interesting comparison. Are you suggesting that Mother Theresa was outstandingly good?

Want evolution taught as the theory that it is and not as an absolute truth.


I hope you will start a thread about this in the Life, the Universe & Everything forum. It needs a lot of expanding so that we understand what you mean by this.

[Hentenza]

Hello Tenebrae. Nice to see you!!!!!:)




Its ironic, I've noticed when a fundamentalist christian does something good, the christians all want to claim them as being representative of their religon, yet when someone like phelps comes along who still believes in the basic tenents they do, its like "na this guy isnt one of us hes a wack job"


Every group, whether Christian, secular, etc, will claim their heroes and shunt their 'whack jobs". Are you saying that this trait is exclusive to fundamentalist Christians?


According to their website, the doctrines of grace are best summed up by the five points of calvinism, or TULIP, they opposed fornication, homosexuality, how does that make them different to you? when they hold the same beliefs you do, if they are wrong surely that makes you wrong


They do not hold to the same Baptist beliefs because their beliefs are fabricated beyond the biblical scope. Phelps bases his cult in a calvinist model that goes even beyond hyper-calvinist beliefs. As you probably know, or should know;), hyper-calvinists believe that ONLY the elect can be saved consequently there is no free will nor do they put much stock in preaching the gospel. It is a position contrary to the teachings of the NT. Phelps has taken it one step further by believing that basically they are the elect. No preaching of the gospel is needed nor does it matter. The love of Christ is not possible. The WBC is nothing less than a cult.

[Lisa0315]

Hello Tenebrae. Nice to see you!!!!!:)




Its ironic, I've noticed when a fundamentalist christian does something good, the christians all want to claim them as being representative of their religon, yet when someone like phelps comes along who still believes in the basic tenents they do, its like "na this guy isnt one of us hes a wack job"


Every group, whether Christian, secular, etc, will claim their heroes and shunt their 'whack jobs". Are you saying that this trait is exclusive to fundamentalist Christians?


According to their website, the doctrines of grace are best summed up by the five points of calvinism, or TULIP, they opposed fornication, homosexuality, how does that make them different to you? when they hold the same beliefs you do, if they are wrong surely that makes you wrong


They do not hold to the same Baptist beliefs because their beliefs are fabricated beyond the biblical scope. Phelps bases his cult in a calvinist model that goes even beyond hyper-calvinist beliefs. As you probably know, or should know;), hyper-calvinists believe that ONLY the elect can be saved consequently there is no free will nor do they put much stock in preaching the gospel. It is a position contrary to the teachings of the NT. Phelps has taken it one step further by believing that basically they are the elect. No preaching of the gospel is needed nor does it matter. The love of Christ is not possible. The WBC is nothing less than a cult.

So, you do not believe that DrStevej is a Christian, then?

Lisa

[Hentenza]

Hi DMB,




I find this an interesting comparison. Are you suggesting that Mother Theresa was outstandingly good?


Would you not consider her to be a polar opposite to Charles Manson?

I hope you will start a thread about this in the Life, the Universe & Everything forum. It needs a lot of expanding so that we understand what you mean by this.


I am more interested in the philosophy and theological discussions. I'll leave those discussions to the more knowledgeable folks.:)

[Hentenza]

Hello Tenebrae. Nice to see you!!!!!:)




Its ironic, I've noticed when a fundamentalist christian does something good, the christians all want to claim them as being representative of their religon, yet when someone like phelps comes along who still believes in the basic tenents they do, its like "na this guy isnt one of us hes a wack job"


Every group, whether Christian, secular, etc, will claim their heroes and shunt their 'whack jobs". Are you saying that this trait is exclusive to fundamentalist Christians?


According to their website, the doctrines of grace are best summed up by the five points of calvinism, or TULIP, they opposed fornication, homosexuality, how does that make them different to you? when they hold the same beliefs you do, if they are wrong surely that makes you wrong


They do not hold to the same Baptist beliefs because their beliefs are fabricated beyond the biblical scope. Phelps bases his cult in a calvinist model that goes even beyond hyper-calvinist beliefs. As you probably know, or should know;), hyper-calvinists believe that ONLY the elect can be saved consequently there is no free will nor do they put much stock in preaching the gospel. It is a position contrary to the teachings of the NT. Phelps has taken it one step further by believing that basically they are the elect. No preaching of the gospel is needed nor does it matter. The love of Christ is not possible. The WBC is nothing less than a cult.

So, you do not believe that DrStevej is a Christian, then?

Lisa

How did you extract that from my comment? Steve is not a hyper calvinist. Maybe a little research might help.;)

[JamesBannon]

I wonder how objective your opinion really is.

No such animal as "objective opinion". All opinions are filtered through layers of learning, judgement, prejudices and what not. Talk of them being "objective" is oxymoronic.

[Aside: One might also argue that "objectivity" is also oxymoronic, but that is the subject of another debate].

[Hentenza]

No such animal as "objective opinion". All opinions are filtered through layers of learning, judgement, prejudices and what not. Talk of them being "objective" is oxymoronic.

[Aside: One might also argue that "objectivity" is also oxymoronic, but that is the subject of another debate].

Your mere absolute belief that there is no such animal makes your opinion "objective". A little self defeating don't cha think?:D

[Lisa0315]

Hello Tenebrae. Nice to see you!!!!!:)




Every group, whether Christian, secular, etc, will claim their heroes and shunt their 'whack jobs". Are you saying that this trait is exclusive to fundamentalist Christians?




They do not hold to the same Baptist beliefs because their beliefs are fabricated beyond the biblical scope. Phelps bases his cult in a calvinist model that goes even beyond hyper-calvinist beliefs. As you probably know, or should know;), hyper-calvinists believe that ONLY the elect can be saved consequently there is no free will nor do they put much stock in preaching the gospel. It is a position contrary to the teachings of the NT. Phelps has taken it one step further by believing that basically they are the elect. No preaching of the gospel is needed nor does it matter. The love of Christ is not possible. The WBC is nothing less than a cult.

So, you do not believe that DrStevej is a Christian, then?

Lisa

How did you extract that from my comment? Steve is not a hyper calvinist. Maybe a little research might help.;)

I didn't know there were sub-categories of Calvinists. I know that Steve is a Calvinist, and I have observed his going after gays and Mormons sucessfully.

So, is hyper-Calvinism based on fame and money that is generated by the attention it receives?

Or, is there really no difference other than Phelps is simply more successful than Steve, and Phelps goes after these same groups in real life rather than just online.

Do you think God sees the difference in these distinctions, or do you think the heart is His chief concern?

Not that this is about Steve, but it does raise my curiousity how one is "okay" to go after gays and Mormons, and the other one isn't.

Besides, how do we know what Steve does in real life? Do you think he preaches against gays and Mormons in real life similar to what he does online? Do you think he uses that sarcastic and mean tone in real life and do you think that he has minions following him like he does at Christian Forums?

Lisa

[JamesBannon]

No such animal as "objective opinion". All opinions are filtered through layers of learning, judgement, prejudices and what not. Talk of them being "objective" is oxymoronic.

[Aside: One might also argue that "objectivity" is also oxymoronic, but that is the subject of another debate].

Your mere absolute belief that there is no such animal makes your opinion "objective". A little self defeating don't cha think?:D
hah! Self-referential statements are always a problem. :D I merely stated my opinion, not any absolute belief. :p

[Hentenza]

[QUOTE=Lisa0315;23497]
I didn't know there were sub-categories of Calvinists. I know that Steve is a Calvinist, and I have observed his going after gays and Mormons sucessfully.

Yes there are sub categories of calvinist. The more common category, Steve's calvinism, does not hold to a total depravity but to a partial depravity. That makes them either a 4 point or a 3 point calvinist. evangelism is not possible if no one has the free will to accept Christ.

So, is hyper-Calvinism based on fame and money that is generated by the attention it receives?


What attention? It's all negative. Hyper calvinists comprises less than 1% of calvinists.

Or, is there really no difference other than Phelps is simply more successful than Steve, and Phelps goes after these same groups in real life rather than just online.
Again, your comparison of Steve's beliefs to Phelp's is one of ignorance. Have you seen Steve boycott a soldier's funeral or call gays faggots, etc.? I don't agree with the gay lifestyle. Does that make me a bigot? Are you a bigot towards fundamentalists because you don't agree with them?

Do you think God sees the difference in these distinctions, or do you think the heart is His chief concern?
Come on Lisa, you know the answer to this. Are any of us perfect? Do you sin? Have you ever "hated" anyone?

Not that this is about Steve, but it does raise my curiousity how one is "okay" to go after gays and Mormons, and the other one isn't.
What do you mean by "going after'?

Besides, how do we know what Steve does in real life? Do you think he preaches against gays and Mormons in real life similar to what he does online? Do you think he uses that sarcastic and mean tone in real life and do you think that he has minions following him like he does at Christian Forums?

I've heard him preach and that was not his message. Why do you make judgment calls without knowing what you are judging?

[Lisa0315]

[quote=Lisa0315;23497]
I didn't know there were sub-categories of Calvinists. I know that Steve is a Calvinist, and I have observed his going after gays and Mormons sucessfully.

Yes there are sub categories of calvinist. The more common category, Steve's calvinism, does not hold to a total depravity but to a partial depravity. That makes them either a 4 point or a 3 point calvinist. evangelism is not possible if no one has the free will to accept Christ.



What attention? It's all negative. Hyper calvinists comprises less than 1% of calvinists.


Again, your comparison of Steve's beliefs to Phelp's is one of ignorance. Have you seen Steve boycott a soldier's funeral or call gays faggots, etc.? I don't agree with the gay lifestyle. Does that make me a bigot? Are you a bigot towards fundamentalists because you don't agree with them?


Come on Lisa, you know the answer to this. Are any of us perfect? Do you sin? Have you ever "hated" anyone?


What do you mean by "going after'?

Besides, how do we know what Steve does in real life? Do you think he preaches against gays and Mormons in real life similar to what he does online? Do you think he uses that sarcastic and mean tone in real life and do you think that he has minions following him like he does at Christian Forums?

I've heard him preach and that was not his message. Why do you make judgment calls without knowing what you are judging?

Because I have experienced the RepDaddy outside of Christian Forums as well. You of all people, a long-time staff member of CF know of Steve's campaigns against Mormons and gays. You and I both participated in those campaigns. I slung rocks. You allowed it.

I repent of the harm I did to non-believers, gays, and baby Christians by participating in hate-fests targeting specific groups that were considered undesirables.

Again, I would like to know why using resources and influence online to marginalize and target specific groups is any different than what Phelps has done.

Did the Fundamentalists not self-describe themselves as militant on CF? Didn't Conservatives claim to not be militant, but then chose to particpate in the many campaigns led by Steve until he finally went to far and was banned?

Lisa

[Hentenza]

No such animal as "objective opinion". All opinions are filtered through layers of learning, judgement, prejudices and what not. Talk of them being "objective" is oxymoronic.

[Aside: One might also argue that "objectivity" is also oxymoronic, but that is the subject of another debate].

Your mere absolute belief that there is no such animal makes your opinion "objective". A little self defeating don't cha think?:D
hah! Self-referential statements are always a problem. :D I merely stated my opinion, not any absolute belief. :p

LOL!!! I know JB. All of us will fall into that trap at one point or another.:D

[Hentenza]

[QUOTE=Lisa0315;23508]

Because I have experienced the RepDaddy outside of Christian Forums as well. You of all people, a long-time staff member of CF know of Steve's campaigns against Mormons and gays. You and I both participated in those campaigns. I slung rocks. You allowed it.

How did I allow it? You were a staffer also. How did you allow it? What was there to allow?
Steve did take it too far and was banned because of it. In that I agree with you, but at the same time, the forums are debate forums. I see a lot of folks that get into debates that should never be debating to begin with. If a person doesn't want their beliefs questioned then they should stick to fellowship only.
I am not defending Steve BTW. He and he alone is responsible for his actions.

I repent of the harm I did to non-believers, gays, and baby Christians by participating in hate-fests targeting specific groups that were considered undesirables.

You are exhibiting the same 'hate" in your comments against fundamentalists. It's basically pole shifting.

Again, I would like to know why using resources and influence online to marginalize and target specific groups is any different than what Phelps has done.
Again, you are generalizing and attributing the same fault to a complete group. I have already shown you that there are several flavors of calvinists. Do you hate them all? I am a fundamentalist in my beliefs. Do you hate me too? You are becoming a fundamentalist is your own beliefs, do you resort to resources and online influence to do as Phelps does?

Did the Fundamentalists not self-describe themselves as militant on CF? Didn't Conservatives claim to not be militant, but then chose to particpate in the many campaigns led by Steve until he finally went to far and was banned?

Yes, fundamentalists do in fact self describe as militant but not to the definition of militancy that you are using. Biblical militancy refers to defending the scriptures and the fundamentals of the faith. It does not include being a terrorist or buying weapons. Our weapon is the bible not hate.

[Lisa0315]

[quote][quote=Lisa0315;23508]

Because I have experienced the RepDaddy outside of Christian Forums as well. You of all people, a long-time staff member of CF know of Steve's campaigns against Mormons and gays. You and I both participated in those campaigns. I slung rocks. You allowed it.


How did I allow it? You were a staffer also. How did you allow it? What was there to allow?
Steve did take it too far and was banned because of it. In that I agree with you, but at the same time, the forums are debate forums. I see a lot of folks that get into debates that should never be debating to begin with. If a person doesn't want their beliefs questioned then they should stick to fellowship only.
I am not defending Steve BTW. He and he alone is responsible for his actions.


Hen, I was a mod for just over a month, not years. I do take responsibility for my part. I just said that I repented of it. I have apologized to people that I know that I did this to.

We are all responsible for each other Hen. That we allow Steve to do the things he did, supported him, laugh about it in the cozy clubs at CF and rule in his favor more often than not...That is indeed our responsibility. I tried to stop it. Remember? Not just Steve, but everyone. I insisted that love was the answer and I was driven out and called a trouble maker. Remember? When I came back, posts from other forums were brought to everyone's attention to show how I was unfit to be around "decent" fundies.


You are exhibiting the same 'hate" in your comments against fundamentalists. It's basically pole shifting.


Not really. If I were crusading to get rid of fundies here or somewhere else, then, yeah, you might could say that. What I am doing is confronting you and your support of certain people. To be honest, I am not that comfortable doing it because it is not what I invited you here for. However, you brought up CF and my bitterness first.


Again, you are generalizing and attributing the same fault to a complete group. I have already shown you that there are several flavors of calvinists. Do you hate them all? I am a fundamentalist in my beliefs. Do you hate me too? You are becoming a fundamentalist is your own beliefs, do you resort to resources and online influence to do as Phelps does?


I do not hate anyone, but if I were to come close to hating anyone, yeah, it would be that false version of Christianity that has driven so many people away with its viciousness in the name of Christ.
Did the Fundamentalists not self-describe themselves as militant on CF? Didn't Conservatives claim to not be militant, but then chose to particpate in the many campaigns led by Steve until he finally went to far and was banned?


Yes, fundamentalist do in fact self describe as militant but not to the definition of militant that you are using. Biblical militancy refers to defending the scriptures and the fundamentals of the faith. It does not include being a terrorist or buying weapons. Our weapon is the bible not hate.

Does defense mean going after individuals and groups? I believe that is what is called going on the Offense.

Also, I would like to understand why you view the Bible, the sacred Word of God, as a weapon? There is a reference of the Word being a sword, but isn't that sword supposed to be drawn by The Holy Spirit, not by us?

Lisa

[Hentenza]

[QUOTE=Lisa0315;23521]



Hen, I was a mod for just over a month, not years. I do take responsibility for my part. I just said that I repented of it. I have apologized to people that I know that I did this to.

We are all responsible for each other Hen. That we allow Steve to do the things he did, supported him, laugh about it in the cozy clubs at CF and rule in his favor more often than not...That is indeed our responsibility. I tried to stop it. Remember? Not just Steve, but everyone. I insisted that love was the answer and I was driven out and called a trouble maker. Remember? When I came back, posts from other forums were brought to everyone's attention to show how I was unfit to be around "decent" fundies.

Lisa, do you remember the multitude of chain pms that we had discussing this? Do you remember the persecution in open reports? Did we get much accomplished? Not at all. This was a very tumultuous time. Many got away with hate. From both sides. If I learned anything from that experience is that trust is earned not freely given and that some people are hypocrites. The disruption of CC planning that occurred in 'elsewhere" is a case in point. The founding of CC was idealistic not realistic. I have come to the conclusion that most folks that were aggressively involved are not representatives of their groups. That is evidenced, at least for me, by the love and kindness that I have experienced in RL from the different groups that I have worked with as part of my deaconship.



Not really. If I were crusading to get rid of fundies here or somewhere else, then, yeah, you might could say that. What I am doing is confronting you and your support of certain people. To be honest, I am not that comfortable doing it because it is not what I invited you here for. However, you brought up CF and my bitterness first.


Show me were I supported any one group. I banned members from both sides. Did I do it fast enough, probably not. Could I have done it differently? Probably. I have accepted responsibility for my actions and I know that you have too. We have learned from our experience.
I brought up the CF issue because, in my opinion, needed to be discussed. I am still sad at your last pm responses to me. I feel that you distrusted me when I directly told you that the conversation was just between us. There are many things in CF that I disagree with. One of the biggest is the extreme position regarding member discussions regarding rules and moderation. The principle is noble but the result is flawed.

I do not hate anyone, but if I were to come close to hating anyone, yeah, it would be that false version of Christianity that has driven so many people away with its viciousness in the name of Christ.

And I agree with you here but you do have to realize that you should not generalize based on labels or perceptions. We are all imperfect and will hurt others at times. We are ALL guilty of this.


Does defense mean going after individuals and groups? I believe that is what is called going on the Offense.
No, I do not believe in offensively going "after" anyone. That is not biblical and lacks common sense. Many people fail to understand that forcing people to change their beliefs is not profitable. History is a good measure of that.

Also, I would like to understand why you view the Bible, the sacred Word of God, as a weapon? There is a reference of the Word being a sword, but isn't that sword supposed to be drawn by The Holy Spirit, not by us?

Sure, the HS is the counselor and fully capable of convicting us. The bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God. Like Christ, it has two natures, the human and the divine. The bible should never be used as an offensive weapon. We know this because of Christ's reaction to the apostle that cut off the soldier's ear during Jesus arrest. Those that live by the sword will perish by the sword. The potency of scripture rests in its absolute truth. Unfortunately, as imperfect humans, our application is errant. Some will ignore the convictions of the HS and use the scriptures to hurt others. I have seen this misuse of scripture by many not just fundamentalists.

[JamesBannon]

I don't get the distinction between "hyper" and "ordinary" Calvinists. Either you accept TULIP or you don't (no, that's not a false dichotomy). E.g., if you don't accept "P" (Perseverence of the Saints for those unfamiliar with the terminology) then you might be some variety of Lutheran, but certainly not a Calvinist. Similarly, Lutherans accept one form of election (the "positive" kind), but not the other (the "negative" kind); i.e., the distinction between single and double predestination. On the other hand, they do accept that one must be elected; i.e., that man is "Totally Unable" to accept God and must be given a "free" gift of grace in order to do so.

[Lisa0315]

I don't get the distinction between "hyper" and "ordinary" Calvinists. Either you accept TULIP or you don't (no, that's not a false dichotomy). E.g., if you don't accept "P" (Perseverence of the Saints for those unfamiliar with the terminology) then you might be some variety of Lutheran, but certainly not a Calvinist. Similarly, Lutherans accept one form of election (the "positive" kind), but not the other (the "negative" kind); i.e., the distinction between single and double predestination. On the other hand, they do accept that one must be elected; i.e., that man is "Totally Unable" to accept God and must be given a "free" gift of grace in order to do so.

I am very unfamiliar with Calvinist doctrine to be honest. If SC ever gets a healthy enough religious forum, it might be interesting to discuss.

I do believe that one is drawn by the Holy Spirit and no one has faith enough to accept Jesus Christ as Saviour unless the Holy Spirit draws them. It is not irresistable though. My question though is if there are folks who are not ever drawn. Baptists would say "no". Everyone is drawn at some point in their lives.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

I don't get the distinction between "hyper" and "ordinary" Calvinists. Either you accept TULIP or you don't (no, that's not a false dichotomy). E.g., if you don't accept "P" (Perseverence of the Saints for those unfamiliar with the terminology) then you might be some variety of Lutheran, but certainly not a Calvinist. Similarly, Lutherans accept one form of election (the "positive" kind), but not the other (the "negative" kind); i.e., the distinction between single and double predestination. On the other hand, they do accept that one must be elected; i.e., that man is "Totally Unable" to accept God and must be given a "free" gift of grace in order to do so.

All points of TULIP are debatable because is man's attempt to explain the finer points of Soteriology. Personally, I believe that both armenians and calvinists have a partial truth but both lack to fully explain how God accomplishes salvation. Some things can be extracted from scripture but some others remain a mystery.

[Lisa0315]

I don't get the distinction between "hyper" and "ordinary" Calvinists. Either you accept TULIP or you don't (no, that's not a false dichotomy). E.g., if you don't accept "P" (Perseverence of the Saints for those unfamiliar with the terminology) then you might be some variety of Lutheran, but certainly not a Calvinist. Similarly, Lutherans accept one form of election (the "positive" kind), but not the other (the "negative" kind); i.e., the distinction between single and double predestination. On the other hand, they do accept that one must be elected; i.e., that man is "Totally Unable" to accept God and must be given a "free" gift of grace in order to do so.

All points of TULIP are debatable because is man's attempt to explain the finer points of Soteriology. Personally, I believe that both armenians and calvinists have a partial truth but both lack to fully explain how God accomplishes salvation. Some things can be extracted from scripture but some others remain a mystery.

Then, how does anyone know if they are right?

[Hentenza]

I don't get the distinction between "hyper" and "ordinary" Calvinists. Either you accept TULIP or you don't (no, that's not a false dichotomy). E.g., if you don't accept "P" (Perseverence of the Saints for those unfamiliar with the terminology) then you might be some variety of Lutheran, but certainly not a Calvinist. Similarly, Lutherans accept one form of election (the "positive" kind), but not the other (the "negative" kind); i.e., the distinction between single and double predestination. On the other hand, they do accept that one must be elected; i.e., that man is "Totally Unable" to accept God and must be given a "free" gift of grace in order to do so.

All points of TULIP are debatable because is man's attempt to explain the finer points of Soteriology. Personally, I believe that both armenians and calvinists have a partial truth but both lack to fully explain how God accomplishes salvation. Some things can be extracted from scripture but some others remain a mystery.

Then, how does anyone know if they are right?

Truthfully, both camps think that they are right, hence, the endless debates. There are a multitude of biblical verses that support both positions. In my humble opinion and since God is not the author of confusion, both positions have to contain a measure of truth. God did predestine some while also allowing free will for some to choose. It would be illogical to assume that any one position is fully correct. You don't have to fully subscribe to one position or the other to be find a measure of truth.

[Lisa0315]

All points of TULIP are debatable because is man's attempt to explain the finer points of Soteriology. Personally, I believe that both armenians and calvinists have a partial truth but both lack to fully explain how God accomplishes salvation. Some things can be extracted from scripture but some others remain a mystery.

Then, how does anyone know if they are right?

Truthfully, both camps think that they are right, hence, the endless debates. There are a multitude of biblical verses that support both positions. In my humble opinion and since God is not the author of confusion, both positions have to contain a measure of truth. God did predestine some while also allowing free will for some to choose. It would be illogical to assume that any one position is fully correct. You don't have to fully subscribe to one position or the other to be find a measure of truth.

Wrong. Look through the magnifying glass of Christ's love, His sacrifice is not in vain for any man. I am not a Universalist by no means, but I do not buy into the whole pre-destination thing. There simply is no way for a just and good God to send men and women to hell without having reached out to each and every single one of them.

How do you account for the millions of atheists who have not CHOSE anything. They cannot believe. They have not been drawn. Do you believe that they were born to go to hell without ever having a single chance?

The only thing I can postulate, Hen, is that maybe, just maybe, there is one last chance at the moment of death. In this world, not everyone can be a believer. If they all were, then, there would be nothing to strive for, and nothing to overcome. However, I simply cannot believe that God, from the foundation of the earth, condemned part of his creation, no, the MAJORITY of His creation to eternal damnation.

It cannot be.

Lisa

[miss djax]

Fundamentalists = hardcore metaphysics They have the only truth and the only way to escape the wrath of god. When they die, they go to heaven, and the rest of us heathens go to hell to be tortured forever and ever. They tend to see things in black and white. They rationalize all the contradictions in the Bible, while claiming that every word is the truth. While this group does some charity work, it usually has strings attached. They will help you out, but they will also evangelize you at the same time. Fundy churches usually spend most of their money on missionary work either directly or indirectly.



this, plus the gay issue. fundies tend to take a total hardline and are totally opposed to any kind of 'encroachment' by the gay community,percieved or otherwise, to the greater culture at large. media, music, academia, your local car dealership.

at least that has been my experience growing up in a fundy home with 2 fundy ministers.

[miss djax]

How can there be a stable, common definition?

People migrate toward whichever aspects of the doctrine meet their individual needs and disregard the rest. The label of "Christianity" meets a social grouping need, but no individual in that group would actually agree with any other on all points.

But if someone wants to try to assemble a list of beliefs and tenets common to all who call themselves "Christian," I'm all ears.

I'll put on some popcorn.

this. one person's mainstream christianity is another's heretical sect. my parents freaked and almost didn't 'allow' me to attend my private liberal arts college because it was founded by 'methodists' and according to the fundy 'rents, they're so outisde the mainstream as to be tangentially christian.

don't get me started on what they thought about catholics ;)

the ever growing chism between conservative and liberal christianity, is in my view, one of the best arguments for agnosticism. if the christians of the world can't see eye to eye on what defines a christian or even salvation, is either thing even possible? at what point then, does christianity cease to be a religion and become a philosophy or a worldview?

[miss djax]

I don't get the distinction between "hyper" and "ordinary" Calvinists. Either you accept TULIP or you don't (no, that's not a false dichotomy). E.g., if you don't accept "P" (Perseverence of the Saints for those unfamiliar with the terminology) then you might be some variety of Lutheran, but certainly not a Calvinist. Similarly, Lutherans accept one form of election (the "positive" kind), but not the other (the "negative" kind); i.e., the distinction between single and double predestination. On the other hand, they do accept that one must be elected; i.e., that man is "Totally Unable" to accept God and must be given a "free" gift of grace in order to do so.

based on my recollections of years of indoctrination, the calvinist perspective, while reprehensible, seems to be the flavor of christianity to jibe with the letter of bible, and seems to require the least amount of mental gymnastics to reconcile.

[Lisa0315]

I don't get the distinction between "hyper" and "ordinary" Calvinists. Either you accept TULIP or you don't (no, that's not a false dichotomy). E.g., if you don't accept "P" (Perseverence of the Saints for those unfamiliar with the terminology) then you might be some variety of Lutheran, but certainly not a Calvinist. Similarly, Lutherans accept one form of election (the "positive" kind), but not the other (the "negative" kind); i.e., the distinction between single and double predestination. On the other hand, they do accept that one must be elected; i.e., that man is "Totally Unable" to accept God and must be given a "free" gift of grace in order to do so.

based on my recollections of years of indoctrination, the calvinist perspective, while reprehensible, seems to be the flavor of christianity to jibe with the letter of bible, and seems to require the least amount of mental gymnastics to reconcile.

If the Calvinists have it right, then, God help us all. :eek:

[Philosophickle]

I don't get the distinction between "hyper" and "ordinary" Calvinists. Either you accept TULIP or you don't (no, that's not a false dichotomy). E.g., if you don't accept "P" (Perseverence of the Saints for those unfamiliar with the terminology) then you might be some variety of Lutheran, but certainly not a Calvinist. Similarly, Lutherans accept one form of election (the "positive" kind), but not the other (the "negative" kind); i.e., the distinction between single and double predestination. On the other hand, they do accept that one must be elected; i.e., that man is "Totally Unable" to accept God and must be given a "free" gift of grace in order to do so.

Hyper Calvinists have two more points. Sometimes they are called "seven point Calvinists and usually associate with supralapsarians.

[Lisa0315]

For those like me who had to look it up...:D

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/supralap.htm


The logical order of the decrees in the supralapsarian scheme is:

(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the election of some and the reprobation of others;
(2) as a means to that goal, the decree to create those elected and reprobated;
(3) the decree to permit the fall; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.
The logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is:

(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the creation of the human race;
(2) the decree to permit the fall;
(3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.

[Brother Daniel]

both armenians and calvinists
Excuse the nitpick, but that's "Arminians", not "Armenians".

"Armenian" is an ethnicity, not a theological stance. (They're mostly 3-Council (pre-Chalcedonian) Orthodox, but that's another story.)

[Hentenza]

Wrong. Look through the magnifying glass of Christ's love, His sacrifice is not in vain for any man. I am not a Universalist by no means, but I do not buy into the whole pre-destination thing. There simply is no way for a just and good God to send men and women to hell without having reached out to each and every single one of them.

How do you account for the millions of atheists who have not CHOSE anything. They cannot believe. They have not been drawn. Do you believe that they were born to go to hell without ever having a single chance?

The only thing I can postulate, Hen, is that maybe, just maybe, there is one last chance at the moment of death. In this world, not everyone can be a believer. If they all were, then, there would be nothing to strive for, and nothing to overcome. However, I simply cannot believe that God, from the foundation of the earth, condemned part of his creation, no, the MAJORITY of His creation to eternal damnation.

It cannot be.

Lisa

That God has predestined SOME can not be argued. Here is Romans 8:29-30 as an example. There are a bunch of other verses but this one should suffice.

29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

That God also allows for people to come to Him also can not be argued. Here is one verse among many.

1 John 2:2
2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

So to argue that God did not predestined some while allowing some to come to Him freely is self defeating. Both positions have plenty of biblical support which makes either position only a measure of truth.

As to who is called, the bible tells us that all are called but some reject Him. No one is without excuse. Romans 1:18-20

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

You argue for free will and I agree with you, however, the concept of free will entails that folks have the ability to choose. The ability to choose has to include options otherwise choosing is not possible. There are two concepts to consider.

The first is that God has revealed Himself through both special revelation and general revelation. That means that both revelations are given freely by God. All have access to both revelations.

The second is the concept of language. We are created in the image of God which presupposes that we share some of God's attributes but in a finite manner. God has a language and a means to communicate with His creation (evidenced by both general and special revelation). Mankind can not be univocal with God since we do not share God's infinite knowledge, likewise, we can not be equivocal to God otherwise we would not be able to understand Him. Mankind is analogous to God because we share God's attributes including reason in order to understand His revelation.

It is foolish to argue that God made people with the express intent to send them to hell. If that was the case then He would not have sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins so that we could be saved or God could have just created a world full of robots. God decided to create a real world with real options. Remember that John 3:16 makes it clear that a choice to believe in Jesus atonement must be made.

To summarize, some are predestined from before creation and some are able to choose Him because God created language and reason. Without reason and/or language we would not have the ability to think or to communicate. All mankind has access to both God's special and general revelation. All mankind has the option to choose or reject Him.

[Lisa0315]

Wrong. Look through the magnifying glass of Christ's love, His sacrifice is not in vain for any man. I am not a Universalist by no means, but I do not buy into the whole pre-destination thing. There simply is no way for a just and good God to send men and women to hell without having reached out to each and every single one of them.

How do you account for the millions of atheists who have not CHOSE anything. They cannot believe. They have not been drawn. Do you believe that they were born to go to hell without ever having a single chance?

The only thing I can postulate, Hen, is that maybe, just maybe, there is one last chance at the moment of death. In this world, not everyone can be a believer. If they all were, then, there would be nothing to strive for, and nothing to overcome. However, I simply cannot believe that God, from the foundation of the earth, condemned part of his creation, no, the MAJORITY of His creation to eternal damnation.

It cannot be.

Lisa

That God has predestined SOME can not be argued. Here is Romans 8:29-30 as an example. There are a bunch of other verses but this one should suffice.

29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

That God also allows for people to come to Him also can not be argued. Here is one verse among many.

1 John 2:2
2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

So to argue that God did not predestined some while allowing some to come to Him freely is self defeating. Both positions have plenty of biblical support which makes either position only a measure of truth.

As to who is called, the bible tells us that all are called but some reject Him. No one is without excuse. Romans 1:18-20

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

You argue for free will and I agree with you, however, the concept of free will entails that folks have the ability to choose. The ability to choose has to include options otherwise choosing is not possible. There are two concepts to consider.

The first is that God has revealed Himself through both special revelation and general revelation. That means that both revelations are given freely by God. All have access to both revelations.

The second is the concept of language. We are created in the image of God which presupposes that we share some of God's attributes but in a finite manner. God has a language and a means to communicate with His creation (evidenced by both general and special revelation). Mankind can not be univocal with God since we do not share God's infinite knowledge, likewise, we can not be equivocal to God otherwise we would not be able to understand Him. Mankind is analogous to God because we share God's attributes including reason in order to understand His revelation.

It is foolish to argue that God made people with the express intent to send them to hell. If that was the case then He would not have sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins so that we could be saved or God could have just created a world full of robots. God decided to create a real world with real options. Remember that John 3:16 makes it clear that a choice to believe in Jesus atonement must be made.

To summarize, some are predestined from before creation and some are able to choose Him because God created language and reason. Without reason and/or language we would not have the ability to think or to communicate. All mankind has access to both God's special and general revelation. All mankind has the option to choose or reject Him.

This is how I was taught too.

However, how do you account for the gazillions of atheists who say that they have never, ever been convicted, have had even a moment in which they considered the existence of God?

There apprears to be a conflict, or even EVIDENCE that not all are called even once.

Lisa

[Hentenza]

both armenians and calvinists
Excuse the nitpick, but that's "Arminians", not "Armenians".

"Armenian" is an ethnicity, not a theological stance. (They're mostly 3-Council (pre-Chalcedonian) Orthodox, but that's another story.)

LOL!!!! A typo. My errancy is showing.:D

[Hentenza]

This is how I was taught too.

However, how do you account for the gazillions of atheists who say that they have never, ever been convicted, have had even a moment in which they considered the existence of God?

There apprears to be a conflict, or even EVIDENCE that not all are called even once.

Lisa

Account for what? How do you know that they have not simply rejected the revelation?

Secondly, you simply have no manner of evidence to support that statement since over 90% (IIRC) of the world's population believe in a deity. That makes atheists a very large minority so it can not be gazillions as you claim. Lets keep things in perspective shall we.

[JamesBannon]

For those like me who had to look it up...:D

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/supralap.htm


The logical order of the decrees in the supralapsarian scheme is:

(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the election of some and the reprobation of others;
(2) as a means to that goal, the decree to create those elected and reprobated;
(3) the decree to permit the fall; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.
The logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is:

(1) God's decree to glorify himself through the creation of the human race;
(2) the decree to permit the fall;
(3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.

I am familiar with those ideas, though not with the name. However, it's a moot point since it's bullshit anyway. (That's the "intolerant atheist" in me coming out ;) )

[JamesBannon]

This is how I was taught too.

However, how do you account for the gazillions of atheists who say that they have never, ever been convicted, have had even a moment in which they considered the existence of God?

There apprears to be a conflict, or even EVIDENCE that not all are called even once.

Lisa

Account for what? How do you know that they have not simply rejected the revelation?

Secondly, you simply have no manner of evidence to support that statement since over 90% (IIRC) of the world's population believe in a deity. That makes atheists a very large minority so it can not be gazillions as you claim. Lets keep things in perspective shall we.

Would it make it true if everyone on the planet believed in the same deity and in the same scriptural tenets? I think not!

You might want to consider the potential effects of Descartes demon or a sollipsist argument on that one.

[David B]

That God has predestined SOME can not be argued. Here is Romans 8:29-30 as an example. There are a bunch of other verses but this one should suffice.

29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

That God also allows for people to come to Him also can not be argued. Here is one verse among many.

1 John 2:2
2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.......

My bold.

It certainly can be argued, as evidenced by the fact that I do so argue, here and now.

Your argument, Hentenza, seems to rest on the literal truth of the Bible.

Since the Bible, in any reading that doesn't require special pleading, contains assorted internal contradictions, assorted errors of fact, assorted prophesies that turn out to have been false, and assorted assertions which are incompatible with what we can reasonably said to know, given the state of science, then I'd repeat to you that assertions based on the literal truth of the bible not only can be, but are, argued.

I'm curious, though, about why you think the Bible needs to be credited more than any other ancient text.

I await your comments with some interest.

David

[Hentenza]

This is how I was taught too.

However, how do you account for the gazillions of atheists who say that they have never, ever been convicted, have had even a moment in which they considered the existence of God?

There apprears to be a conflict, or even EVIDENCE that not all are called even once.

Lisa

Account for what? How do you know that they have not simply rejected the revelation?

Secondly, you simply have no manner of evidence to support that statement since over 90% (IIRC) of the world's population believe in a deity. That makes atheists a very large minority so it can not be gazillions as you claim. Lets keep things in perspective shall we.

Would it make it true if everyone on the planet believed in the same deity and in the same scriptural tenets? I think not!

You might want to consider the potential effects of Descartes demon or a sollipsist argument on that one.

And how exactly did you extract form my answer that all mankind believes in the same deity or scriptural tenets? That is not my argument. I merely pointed out the numbers to refute the statement that there are gazillions of atheists, no more no less.

[JamesBannon]

Account for what? How do you know that they have not simply rejected the revelation?

Secondly, you simply have no manner of evidence to support that statement since over 90% (IIRC) of the world's population believe in a deity. That makes atheists a very large minority so it can not be gazillions as you claim. Lets keep things in perspective shall we.

Would it make it true if everyone on the planet believed in the same deity and in the same scriptural tenets? I think not!

You might want to consider the potential effects of Descartes demon or a sollipsist argument on that one.

And how exactly did you extract form my answer that all mankind believes in the same deity or scriptural tenets? That is not my argument. I merely pointed out the numbers to refute the statement that there are gazillions of atheists, no more no less.

I know. I just responded with another question.

[Hentenza]

My bold.

It certainly can be argued, as evidenced by the fact that I do so argue, here and now.

Your argument, Hentenza, seems to rest on the literal truth of the Bible.

Since the Bible, in any reading that doesn't require special pleading, contains assorted internal contradictions, assorted errors of fact, assorted prophesies that turn out to have been false, and assorted assertions which are incompatible with what we can reasonably said to know, given the state of science, then I'd repeat to you that assertions based on the literal truth of the bible not only can be, but are, argued.

I'm curious, though, about why you think the Bible needs to be credited more than any other ancient text.

I await your comments with some interest.

David

Hi David,

Yes I believe in the inerrancy of scripture, however, I do know that there are errors in the copied manuscripts. One needs to first understand the concept of scripture inerrancy. I do not see the internal contradictions, errors of fact, assorted false prophesies, etc. that you claim. It has been my experience that most that claim such are simply unwilling to accept the explanations.

[Hentenza]

Would it make it true if everyone on the planet believed in the same deity and in the same scriptural tenets? I think not!

You might want to consider the potential effects of Descartes demon or a sollipsist argument on that one.

And how exactly did you extract form my answer that all mankind believes in the same deity or scriptural tenets? That is not my argument. I merely pointed out the numbers to refute the statement that there are gazillions of atheists, no more no less.

I know. I just responded with another question.

And the question is............:)

[SallyAnne]

Yet, there are extremists within the liberal groups too. I have literally seen liberals in the WWMC forum welcome Satanics who believe they are serving God from the left-hand path. (Hard to explain)



Right, and I've been treated horribly in that so-called "welcoming" and "loving" forum. I am a Christian but they would rather embrace a Satanist? :confused:

Whatever.:o

[Lisa0315]

This is how I was taught too.

However, how do you account for the gazillions of atheists who say that they have never, ever been convicted, have had even a moment in which they considered the existence of God?

There apprears to be a conflict, or even EVIDENCE that not all are called even once.

Lisa

Account for what? How do you know that they have not simply rejected the revelation?

Secondly, you simply have no manner of evidence to support that statement since over 90% (IIRC) of the world's population believe in a deity. That makes atheists a very large minority so it can not be gazillions as you claim. Lets keep things in perspective shall we.

Okay, so aproximately 671 million people at present do not believe in God, any God. To estimate the number of atheists since the time of Christ:

Generation Period of 70 years would equal aproximately 29 generations since Christ
A decrease of the number of atheists by 1% until the mid 1800's
A decrease of the number of atheists by 2% until the 1500's
Assume that EVERYONE believed in some kind of deity prior to that
One would have to adjust for the decrease in population, let's say 25% for each generation. That actually comes pretty close as the estimated total population in the day of Christ was 3 million. My 25% gets us to 2.1 million which is a more conservative number.
So, if we use these estimates of the number of atheists just since the 1500's, that is 1.8 billion atheists.

Is that better perspective, Hen? According to OUR interpretation of the Bible, the one WE were trained with, 1.8 billion people have gone to hell for no more reason than they simply could not (not would not), but COULD NOT believe.

Some of those COULD BE souls which turned away from God for whatever reason. However, belief is a gift from God. One either has it or one doesn't. One CANNOT believe without the aid of God.

So, do we serve a monster or is there another explanation? I cannot, cannot believe that my God would do this, and if He has, then, it is tyranny.

Can the creature be more moral than its Creator? Impossible! So, it has to be, there has to be more that we simply do not know.

This is why we need to stop preaching the threatening Gospel and instead teach people the GOOD NEWS! How can anyone believe that God loves them if it is under threat of hell?

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

Just from curiosity, Lisa, was the WWMC forum open to atheists who defended atheism?

Sure, atheists and satanists are welcome....just fundy and conservative Christians are shunned and treated with hostility.

[SallyAnne]

Conservatives would strongly disagree, but they have done more to desensitize the average American to the things of God than anyone else. What point is there in believing if Fred Phelps and his ilk is how God is represented to many people? If people's idea of Christianity is funeral protesting, abortion bombing, and gay-hating, who would in their right mind believe?

Lisa


I've NEVER met one conservative Christian from CF or anywhere else who agrees with Phelps.:confused:

[SallyAnne]

How is Phelps representative of Christianity?


I have no idea, have you ever met a Christian who identifies with Phelps??? :confused: Because I certainly haven't....

[Lisa0315]

Conservatives would strongly disagree, but they have done more to desensitize the average American to the things of God than anyone else. What point is there in believing if Fred Phelps and his ilk is how God is represented to many people? If people's idea of Christianity is funeral protesting, abortion bombing, and gay-hating, who would in their right mind believe?

Lisa


I've NEVER met one conservative Christian from CF or anywhere else who agrees with Phelps.:confused:

You are missing the gist of the posts about this. It is the PERCEPTION of the average American that Fred Phelps represents Christianity, and especially Fundie Christianity.

Whether it is factual or not, this is who people associate fundies with. Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell.

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

To those who do not know the difference, Phelps is a representative of Conservative Christianity


Then they need to get out more. Honestly, I think people are more intelligent than that....

[Hentenza]

This is how I was taught too.

However, how do you account for the gazillions of atheists who say that they have never, ever been convicted, have had even a moment in which they considered the existence of God?

There apprears to be a conflict, or even EVIDENCE that not all are called even once.

Lisa

Account for what? How do you know that they have not simply rejected the revelation?

Secondly, you simply have no manner of evidence to support that statement since over 90% (IIRC) of the world's population believe in a deity. That makes atheists a very large minority so it can not be gazillions as you claim. Lets keep things in perspective shall we.

Okay, so aproximately 671 million people at present do not believe in God, any God. To estimate the number of atheists since the time of Christ:

Generation Period of 70 years would equal aproximately 29 generations since Christ
A decrease of the number of atheists by 1% until the mid 1800's
A decrease of the number of atheists by 2% until the 1500's
Assume that EVERYONE believed in some kind of deity prior to that
One would have to adjust for the decrease in population, let's say 25% for each generation. That actually comes pretty close as the estimated total population in the day of Christ was 3 million. My 25% gets us to 2.1 million which is a more conservative number.
So, if we use these estimates of the number of atheists just since the 1500's, that is 1.8 billion atheists.

Is that better perspective, Hen? According to OUR interpretation of the Bible, the one WE were trained with, 1.8 billion people have gone to hell for no more reason than they simply could not (not would not), but COULD NOT believe.

Some of those COULD BE souls which turned away from God for whatever reason. However, belief is a gift from God. One either has it or one doesn't. One CANNOT believe without the aid of God.

So, do we serve a monster or is there another explanation? I cannot, cannot believe that my God would do this, and if He has, then, it is tyranny.

Can the creature be more moral than its Creator? Impossible! So, it has to be, there has to be more that we simply do not know.

This is why we need to stop preaching the threatening Gospel and instead teach people the GOOD NEWS! How can anyone believe that God loves them if it is under threat of hell?

Lisa

Lisa,

Please don't paint yourself into a corner. My observation was two pronged. You made a statement that gazillion of atheist had not been 'called' by God which is a statement that can not be supported. My answer to you asked how you can know that they have not simply rejected God's revelation. You can not possibly answer that with any degree of accuracy so your statement is logically flawed.

You are correct in that the gospel has to be preached to those that have never heard it.

[SallyAnne]

Conservatives would strongly disagree, but they have done more to desensitize the average American to the things of God than anyone else. What point is there in believing if Fred Phelps and his ilk is how God is represented to many people? If people's idea of Christianity is funeral protesting, abortion bombing, and gay-hating, who would in their right mind believe?

Lisa


I've NEVER met one conservative Christian from CF or anywhere else who agrees with Phelps.:confused:

You are missing the gist of the posts about this. It is the PERCEPTION of the average American that Fred Phelps represents Christianity, and especially Fundie Christianity.

Whether it is factual or not, this is who people associate fundies with. Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell.

Lisa



I do understand that there is a pervasive stereotype of Phelps that has latched itself onto American Conservative/Fundie Christianity, but anyone with an ounce of fairness will not judge ALL conservative Christians by a few bad examples. Just as I don't judge ALL Muslims by the few deranged nutcases who also give their religion a bad rap....

[Hentenza]

How is Phelps representative of Christianity?


I have no idea, have you ever met a Christian who identifies with Phelps??? :confused: Because I certainly haven't....

Neither have I.

Nice to see you SallyAnne.:wave:

[SallyAnne]

Nice to see you SallyAnne.:wave:


Splendid to see you too Hent!:wave:

[Lisa0315]

To those who do not know the difference, Phelps is a representative of Conservative Christianity


Then they need to get out more. Honestly, I think people are more intelligent than that....

That is not realistic though. It is the hotheads and the famous ones that people are going to draw their conclusions from.

Take Phelps out of the equation. You still have Robertson and Falwell blaming Katrina and 9-11 on gays and the murderers of the unborn.

You and I agreed on this once...We live in the age of grace. Robertson and Falwell who both spoke for fundie Christianity at one time or another, made these claims. They should have been pulled down from their positions of authority rather than allow them to speak of the judgement of God in error.

So many agree with them, nod their heads, and do not even read their Bibles. God's judgment is not upon us although these things may be warnings of the coming judgment...just as there have been warnings since the beginning of time. It is not specific to one nation or one sin...yet...

I assure you that if America is judged prior to the Second Coming, it will be more for the immorality within our own churches. Yep, that family sitting on the next pew, and the wife is having an affair, or the husband is dallying, or gambling, or drinking or beating his kids...God does not judge the world...yet...He WILL chastise His children.

It is not the GLBT's that will bring the destruction to this country but for the infidelity and hypocrisy of those who hold the truth but like the Pharissees use it to condemn others rather than convict themselves by it.

You want a word of truth? There it is right there.

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

To those who do not know the difference, Phelps is a representative of Conservative Christianity


Then they need to get out more. Honestly, I think people are more intelligent than that....

That is not realistic though. It is the hotheads and the famous ones that people are going to draw their conclusions from.

Take Phelps out of the equation. You still have Robertson and Falwell blaming Katrina and 9-11 on gays and the murderers of the unborn.

You and I agreed on this once...We live in the age of grace. Robertson and Falwell who both spoke for fundie Christianity at one time or another, made these claims. They should have been pulled down from their positions of authority rather than allow them to speak of the judgement of God in error.

So many agree with them, nod their heads, and do not even read their Bibles. God's judgment is not upon us although these things may be warnings of the coming judgment...just as there have been warnings since the beginning of time. It is not specific to one nation or one sin...yet...

I assure you that if America is judged prior to the Second Coming, it will be more for the immorality within our own churches. Yep, that family sitting on the next pew, and the wife is having an affair, or the husband is dallying, or gambling, or drinking or beating his kids...God does not judge the world...yet...He WILL chastise His children.

It is not the GLBT's that will bring the destruction to this country but for the infidelity and hypocrisy of those who hold the truth but like the Pharissees use it to condemn others rather than convict themselves by it.

You want a word of truth? There it is right there.

Lisa


Yes, I agree with everything you just wrote. I just think it's a stretch to conclude that all Americans look at the likes of Phelps and think "yep, that's Christianity."

As much as I disagree with Islam, I don't look at the few toons who took the Twin Towers down and think to myself "yep, that's Islam."

I think a little perspective is needed here. I don't believe that intelligent people look at Phelps and see Jesus Christ staring back at them, I think that much they can discern for themselves.....

[SallyAnne]

I want to add something else to this discussion. There are MANY excellent examples of great Christians not just the few bad apples.

People can equally look at David Pawson, Dr Charles Stanley, Joyce Meyer, and many others for great examples of Christianity. Why is it assumed that Americans will look at Phelps and Falwell and choose those over someone like Charles Stanley?

I hadn't even heard of Fred Phelps when I became a Christian, it was a full decade as a Christian before I'd even heard of him! But I was well aquainted with good examples. So if someone wants to believe bad about Christianity, they'll naturally point to the likes of Phelps, but they also must acknowledge the good ones.

[Lisa0315]

Account for what? How do you know that they have not simply rejected the revelation?

Secondly, you simply have no manner of evidence to support that statement since over 90% (IIRC) of the world's population believe in a deity. That makes atheists a very large minority so it can not be gazillions as you claim. Lets keep things in perspective shall we.


Okay, so aproximately 671 million people at present do not believe in God, any God. To estimate the number of atheists since the time of Christ:

Generation Period of 70 years would equal aproximately 29 generations since Christ
A decrease of the number of atheists by 1% until the mid 1800's
A decrease of the number of atheists by 2% until the 1500's
Assume that EVERYONE believed in some kind of deity prior to that
One would have to adjust for the decrease in population, let's say 25% for each generation. That actually comes pretty close as the estimated total population in the day of Christ was 3 million. My 25% gets us to 2.1 million which is a more conservative number.
So, if we use these estimates of the number of atheists just since the 1500's, that is 1.8 billion atheists.

Is that better perspective, Hen? According to OUR interpretation of the Bible, the one WE were trained with, 1.8 billion people have gone to hell for no more reason than they simply could not (not would not), but COULD NOT believe.

Some of those COULD BE souls which turned away from God for whatever reason. However, belief is a gift from God. One either has it or one doesn't. One CANNOT believe without the aid of God.

So, do we serve a monster or is there another explanation? I cannot, cannot believe that my God would do this, and if He has, then, it is tyranny.

Can the creature be more moral than its Creator? Impossible! So, it has to be, there has to be more that we simply do not know.

This is why we need to stop preaching the threatening Gospel and instead teach people the GOOD NEWS! How can anyone believe that God loves them if it is under threat of hell?

Lisa

Lisa,

Please don't paint yourself into a corner. My observation was two pronged. You made a statement that gazillion of atheist had not been 'called' by God which is a statement that can not be supported. My answer to you asked how you can know that they have not simply rejected God's revelation. You can not possibly answer that with any degree of accuracy so your statement is logically flawed.

You are correct in that the gospel has to be preached to those that have never heard it.

Oh, I did leave that out.

I can know that they have not simply rejected God's revelation the same way I can know who has received it, and Scripture supports this.

By testimony, those who bear witness of salvation by God, so those who have not testify that they have not, nor have they been called.

Do you think hearing is enough? The Jews heard the very voice of God and did not believe. Was it not enough to see miracles for them to believe? Was it purposeful rejection, Hen? No, Isaiah tells us that the Jews were purposefully blinded to their Messiah so that the Gentiles could be grafted in.

Why do you think Jesus says, Blessed are they which do not see or hear but believe? (paraphrased and not cited)

The emphasis there, Hen, is on Blessed! It is a gift. Those who hear and those who see cannot unless God blesses them with sight and hearing.

Did you ever wonder why the disciples were more successful in obtaining converts than Jesus was? There were 120 faithful by the end. Out of the thousands who followed him during his ministry, only 120 remained. They were not given the gift of belief.

What did the centurion pray except, Lord Help my Unbelief! Jesus answered that prayer. How could there be unbelief when one was standing right before the King of Kings except that belief is a gift, an answered prayer.

Why do we pray for the unsaved? Do we pray that we can get them under the sound of preaching, or that we may persuade them? No, we pray for intercession from Almighty God that their hearts might believe. We ask for God to GIVE THEM FAITH.

There are certainly those who are given the gift and reject it, but you spend the years I have talking to atheists and you are going to find out...They have nothing, not a single moment, not a single experience, nothing that says that they were called and they simply rejected the voice of God.

So, Hen, my evidence is the same as yours. My evidence is the testimony of all the atheists I have talked with who tell me that they have never believed, not for a second, not had a moment of doubt. Do you know how many have told me that they WISHED there was a God? Not all of them, certainly, but MANY of them.

Do you know how difficult it is to answer those who say they WISH IT? I have talked two of them in doing a chapter by chapter verse by verse study with me and having them pray if they could, if they would. They tried, not as a test, but they simply COULD NOT BELIEVE.

So, there HAS to be something more or our God is a monster who condemned most of his creation from the foundation of the earth.

So, of those 1.8 billion estimated atheists, how many were called Hen? How many truly rejected and how many simply never received the gift of faith? You cannot even stomach the possibility. You must insist that they HAD to consciously and purposefully reject Jesus Christ, but THEY DIDN'T. They didn't reject God no more than all of those thousand of followers of Christ. They simply did not receive the gift of belief.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Then they need to get out more. Honestly, I think people are more intelligent than that....

That is not realistic though. It is the hotheads and the famous ones that people are going to draw their conclusions from.

Take Phelps out of the equation. You still have Robertson and Falwell blaming Katrina and 9-11 on gays and the murderers of the unborn.

You and I agreed on this once...We live in the age of grace. Robertson and Falwell who both spoke for fundie Christianity at one time or another, made these claims. They should have been pulled down from their positions of authority rather than allow them to speak of the judgement of God in error.

So many agree with them, nod their heads, and do not even read their Bibles. God's judgment is not upon us although these things may be warnings of the coming judgment...just as there have been warnings since the beginning of time. It is not specific to one nation or one sin...yet...

I assure you that if America is judged prior to the Second Coming, it will be more for the immorality within our own churches. Yep, that family sitting on the next pew, and the wife is having an affair, or the husband is dallying, or gambling, or drinking or beating his kids...God does not judge the world...yet...He WILL chastise His children.

It is not the GLBT's that will bring the destruction to this country but for the infidelity and hypocrisy of those who hold the truth but like the Pharissees use it to condemn others rather than convict themselves by it.

You want a word of truth? There it is right there.

Lisa


Yes, I agree with everything you just wrote. I just think it's a stretch to conclude that all Americans look at the likes of Phelps and think "yep, that's Christianity."

As much as I disagree with Islam, I don't look at the few toons who took the Twin Towers down and think to myself "yep, that's Islam."

I think a little perspective is needed here. I don't believe that intelligent people look at Phelps and see Jesus Christ staring back at them, I think that much they can discern for themselves.....

As I said, take Phelps completely out of it then. Look at Falwell and Robertson only. They said the same things as Phelps, and have influenced Presidents on policy. They ARE the moral majority.

Look at Sarah Palin, another good example of Conservative Christianity in the minds of the American people.

I am not disavowing doctrine here. I am simply saying that this IS who fundamentalists are to average Americans.

It is also why I said fundie Christian has done more to discourage new believers than anything or anyone else.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I want to add something else to this discussion. There are MANY excellent examples of great Christians not just the few bad apples.

People can equally look at David Pawson, Dr Charles Stanley, Joyce Meyer, and many others for great examples of Christianity. Why is it assumed that Americans will look at Phelps and Falwell and choose those over someone like Charles Stanley?

I hadn't even heard of Fred Phelps when I became a Christian, it was a full decade as a Christian before I'd even heard of him! But I was well aquainted with good examples. So if someone wants to believe bad about Christianity, they'll naturally point to the likes of Phelps, but they also must acknowledge the good ones.

Joyce Meyer would not be considered a fundie by anyone I know as fundies do not believe that women should be pastors. Charles Stanley is also highly criticized, although I personally like him, because he does not preach about sin, but rather, on how to live a better life. David Pawson, I never heard of.

Joyce Meyers and Charles Stanley, in my book, would be moderates, and definitely not fundies. I would even be interested to see who they voted for.

Lisa

[miss djax]

I want to add something else to this discussion. There are MANY excellent examples of great Christians not just the few bad apples.

People can equally look at David Pawson, Dr Charles Stanley, Joyce Meyer, and many others for great examples of Christianity. Why is it assumed that Americans will look at Phelps and Falwell and choose those over someone like Charles Stanley?

I hadn't even heard of Fred Phelps when I became a Christian, it was a full decade as a Christian before I'd even heard of him! But I was well aquainted with good examples. So if someone wants to believe bad about Christianity, they'll naturally point to the likes of Phelps, but they also must acknowledge the good ones.


what i can tell you is that every time i've heard fred phelps name come up in a conversation *usually about some kind of heinous act du jour is in the news* its followed up by a chorus of 'this is why i'm not a christian' or some sarcastic riff off of the old 'they'll know we are christians by our love'.

he's a media whore. like it or not he's front and central in the news and he's calling himself 'reverend' and he's there with his 'church'. he may not have the mainstream churches good housekeeping stamp of approval but he's out there, as some kind of misanthropic beacon of christendom. and the fact that there hasn't been any kind of mainstream christian dismissal of him acts as a tacit approval of both his means and his message.

you're church might not be carrying signs that say 'god hates fags' but what do you think it sounds like when rick warren gets behind prop 8? 'hate the sin' is thinly veiled 'hate the sinner'. an abomination and all.

with respect to your point about acknowleding the good christians, why should i? why would you expect people of other religions, agnostics, and atheists to be up to speed on the latest and greatest folks of the christian top 10? we aren't. and i'd hazard to say a substantial number of christians aren't either..

for that matter, are you up to speed on the latest mormon apologists and missionaries? shiite muslims? jains? christopher hitchens latest book?

[Lisa0315]

Oh, and I just want to say that none of this is personal. I am going to set up a thread for us to let our hair down, let go of the disagreements, and let me introduce you to other members here. They don't bite, I promise. :)

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

I gave you Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Those are all recent and contemporary representatives of American Christianity. They are the most famous, the most powerful, and the best funded. Falwell, being dead of course, but in his lifetime, he influenced Presidents, okay? Are you going to honestly say that these three do not in the minds of the average person represent mainstream Christianity in America? Pahleese!




And I give you Charles Stanley, Joyce Meyer, and David Pawson. The claim that Phelps and Falwell are the ONLY faces of powerful Christianity is untrue.

They're not, they just mix their politics with their religion and intelligent people should be able to distinguish the difference between Phelps and Charles Stanley because they're like chalk and cheese. And when it comes to representing Christianity, it is Charles Stanley who is the powerful one, not Phelps.

So anyone who doesn't want to accept the Gospel is going to find any excuse to reject it, they'll gleefully point to Phelps and Falwell as their EXCUSES. But they can't point to every single Christian and accuse them of being a stumbling block to Christianity.

[Lisa0315]

I gave you Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Those are all recent and contemporary representatives of American Christianity. They are the most famous, the most powerful, and the best funded. Falwell, being dead of course, but in his lifetime, he influenced Presidents, okay? Are you going to honestly say that these three do not in the minds of the average person represent mainstream Christianity in America? Pahleese!




And I give you Charles Stanley, Joyce Meyer, and David Pawson. The claim that Phelps and Falwell are the ONLY faces of powerful Christianity is untrue.

They're not, they just mix their politics with their religion and intelligent people should be able to distinguish the difference between Phelps and Charles Stanley because they're like chalk and cheese.

So anyone who doesn't want to accept the Gospel is going to find any excuse to reject it, they'll gleefully point to Phelps and Falwell as their EXCUSES. But they can't point to every single Christian and accuse them of being a stumbling block to Christianity.

Alright, I will give you that point. I sure would not want to accuse the average American of being too stupid to distinguish between Phelps and Stanley.

Now, how would you say that members of Christian Forums represented Christiantiy to unbelievers? Did they act more like Falwell or Stanley?

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

what i can tell you is that every time i've heard fred phelps name come up in a conversation *usually about some kind of heinous act du jour is in the news* its followed up by a chorus of 'this is why i'm not a christian' or some sarcastic riff off of the old 'they'll know we are christians by our love'.

he's a media whore. like it or not he's front and central in the news and he's calling himself 'reverend' and he's there with his 'church'. he may not have the mainstream churches good housekeeping stamp of approval but he's out there, as some kind of misanthropic beacon of christendom.


And Stalin was "out there" as a beacon of atheism, and so were the French Revolutionaries who butchered half a million people in the name of "reason."

Does that mean we should accuse the thought system of Atheims with those atrocities or just a few deranged nutcases who committed the atrocities?

[4321lynx]

Oh, and I just want to say that none of this is personal. I am going to set up a thread for us to let our hair down, let go of the disagreements, and let me introduce you to other members here. They don't bite, I promise. :)

Lisa

Maybe not, but their discussions bore the hell out of me. Never heard such cocentrated inspissiated bull. Save me oh merciful FSM!!! Throw me to the lions but save me from these goddamned christ-botherers!!!
:eek::bang::bang::bang::eek:

[Lisa0315]

Oh, and I just want to say that none of this is personal. I am going to set up a thread for us to let our hair down, let go of the disagreements, and let me introduce you to other members here. They don't bite, I promise. :)

Lisa

Maybe not, but their discussions bore the hell out of me. Never heard such cocentrated inspissiated bull. Save me oh merciful FSM!!! Throw me to the lions but save me from these goddamned christ-botherers!!!
:eek::bang::bang::bang::eek:

Ahem! Thanks for making my friends welcome here, lynx. :rolleyes:

If anyone is interested in getting to know my friends as PEOPLE, then, please stop by here.

http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=23739#post23739

[SallyAnne]

Oh, and I just want to say that none of this is personal. I am going to set up a thread for us to let our hair down, let go of the disagreements, and let me introduce you to other members here. They don't bite, I promise. :)

Lisa

Maybe not, but their discussions bore the hell out of me. Never heard such cocentrated inspissiated bull. Save me oh merciful FSM!!! Throw me to the lions but save me from these goddamned christ-botherers!!!
:eek::bang::bang::bang::eek:


Well hey, no-one's forcing you to read.:dunno:

[SallyAnne]

Oh, and I just want to say that none of this is personal. I am going to set up a thread for us to let our hair down, let go of the disagreements, and let me introduce you to other members here. They don't bite, I promise. :)

Lisa

Maybe not, but their discussions bore the hell out of me. Never heard such cocentrated inspissiated bull. Save me oh merciful FSM!!! Throw me to the lions but save me from these goddamned christ-botherers!!!
:eek::bang::bang::bang::eek:

Ahem! Thanks for making my friends welcome here, lynx. :rolleyes:

If anyone is interested in getting to know my friends as PEOPLE, then, please stop by here.

http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=23739#post23739



Don't worry about it Lisa, I've never much been welcome anywhere, not even by Christians. LOL.:D

[SallyAnne]

I gave you Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Those are all recent and contemporary representatives of American Christianity. They are the most famous, the most powerful, and the best funded. Falwell, being dead of course, but in his lifetime, he influenced Presidents, okay? Are you going to honestly say that these three do not in the minds of the average person represent mainstream Christianity in America? Pahleese!




And I give you Charles Stanley, Joyce Meyer, and David Pawson. The claim that Phelps and Falwell are the ONLY faces of powerful Christianity is untrue.

They're not, they just mix their politics with their religion and intelligent people should be able to distinguish the difference between Phelps and Charles Stanley because they're like chalk and cheese.

So anyone who doesn't want to accept the Gospel is going to find any excuse to reject it, they'll gleefully point to Phelps and Falwell as their EXCUSES. But they can't point to every single Christian and accuse them of being a stumbling block to Christianity.

Alright, I will give you that point. I sure would not want to accuse the average American of being too stupid to distinguish between Phelps and Stanley.

Now, how would you say that members of Christian Forums represented Christiantiy to unbelievers? Did they act more like Falwell or Stanley?

Lisa



Well, the ones I came into contact with on CF were more like Stanley. But I accept that you once told me over there on the GA forum that before I was there, there were a couple of unfortuante nasties who were acting like Phelps.

[David B]

Quite a lot of atheists on the net get pointed to Rapture Ready from time to time in their internet career.

What do the new Christians make of that discussion board?

And another place that atheists get pointed to is Answers in Genesis.

What do you guys make of that, too?

For myself, I'm always happy to mention those sites to noobs, on the grounds that I don't think they show Christianity in a very good light, and I don't see Christianity, on balance, as a good thing.

One site I also like to point people to is the entire archive of this comic strip, though the link points to just one example. It is not a Christian cartoon:)

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/05/02/pill/

What do you guys think of that? Effective? Offensive? What?

David

[SallyAnne]

Quite a lot of atheists on the net get pointed to Rapture Ready from time to time in their internet career.

What do the new Christians make of that discussion board?



Never heard of it....will have to take a look....

[Lisa0315]

And I give you Charles Stanley, Joyce Meyer, and David Pawson. The claim that Phelps and Falwell are the ONLY faces of powerful Christianity is untrue.

They're not, they just mix their politics with their religion and intelligent people should be able to distinguish the difference between Phelps and Charles Stanley because they're like chalk and cheese.

So anyone who doesn't want to accept the Gospel is going to find any excuse to reject it, they'll gleefully point to Phelps and Falwell as their EXCUSES. But they can't point to every single Christian and accuse them of being a stumbling block to Christianity.

Alright, I will give you that point. I sure would not want to accuse the average American of being too stupid to distinguish between Phelps and Stanley.

Now, how would you say that members of Christian Forums represented Christiantiy to unbelievers? Did they act more like Falwell or Stanley?

Lisa



Well, the ones I came into contact with on CF were more like Stanley. But I accept that you once told me over there on the GA forum that before I was there, there were a couple of unfortuante nasties who were acting like Phelps.

Let me be more specific.

When decisions were being made on how to treat non-Christians, do you believe it was done in the way of Falwell or Stanley?

Lisa

[Hentenza]

Oh, I did leave that out.

I can know that they have not simply rejected God's revelation the same way I can know who has received it, and Scripture supports this.

By testimony, those who bear witness of salvation by God, so those who have not testify that they have not, nor have they been called.

Do you think hearing is enough? The Jews heard the very voice of God and did not believe. Was it not enough to see miracles for them to believe? Was it purposeful rejection, Hen? No, Isaiah tells us that the Jews were purposefully blinded to their Messiah so that the Gentiles could be grafted in.

Why do you think Jesus says, Blessed are they which do not see or hear but believe? (paraphrased and not cited)

The emphasis there, Hen, is on Blessed! It is a gift. Those who hear and those who see cannot unless God blesses them with sight and hearing.

Did you ever wonder why the disciples were more successful in obtaining converts than Jesus was? There were 120 faithful by the end. Out of the thousands who followed him during his ministry, only 120 remained. They were not given the gift of belief.

What did the centurion pray except, Lord Help my Unbelief! Jesus answered that prayer. How could there be unbelief when one was standing right before the King of Kings except that belief is a gift, an answered prayer.

Why do we pray for the unsaved? Do we pray that we can get them under the sound of preaching, or that we may persuade them? No, we pray for intercession from Almighty God that their hearts might believe. We ask for God to GIVE THEM FAITH.

There are certainly those who are given the gift and reject it, but you spend the years I have talking to atheists and you are going to find out...They have nothing, not a single moment, not a single experience, nothing that says that they were called and they simply rejected the voice of God.

So, Hen, my evidence is the same as yours. My evidence is the testimony of all the atheists I have talked with who tell me that they have never believed, not for a second, not had a moment of doubt. Do you know how many have told me that they WISHED there was a God? Not all of them, certainly, but MANY of them.

Do you know how difficult it is to answer those who say they WISH IT? I have talked two of them in doing a chapter by chapter verse by verse study with me and having them pray if they could, if they would. They tried, not as a test, but they simply COULD NOT BELIEVE.

So, there HAS to be something more or our God is a monster who condemned most of his creation from the foundation of the earth.

So, of those 1.8 billion estimated atheists, how many were called Hen? How many truly rejected and how many simply never received the gift of faith? You cannot even stomach the possibility. You must insist that they HAD to consciously and purposefully reject Jesus Christ, but THEY DIDN'T. They didn't reject God no more than all of those thousand of followers of Christ. They simply did not receive the gift of belief.

Lisa

Lisa,

I can equally tell you of the many that have. Heck, we just have one do the altar call at our church yesterday. Praise God. The bible tells us that those that seek with all of their heart will find Him.

Matthew 7:7-12
7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! 12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

A problem that I have seen is that some seek but will only accept what pleases them or what edifies them. The Jews (general statement) did this. Their unbelief, even after first hand witness, was due to their own pride. I can cite many examples of this.

[SallyAnne]

Let me be more specific.

When decisions were being made on how to treat non-Christians, do you believe it was done in the way of Falwell or Stanley?

Lisa



How to treat non-Christians? I have no idea. Why? Are you implying that Christian members were instructed to behave like Falwell?:confused:

I certainly wasn't told to behave like that. It might not be the best question to put to me because I'm not even up on the rules over there, I only know about them when I break them and get a warning.:mad:

:p

[miss djax]

what i can tell you is that every time i've heard fred phelps name come up in a conversation *usually about some kind of heinous act du jour is in the news* its followed up by a chorus of 'this is why i'm not a christian' or some sarcastic riff off of the old 'they'll know we are christians by our love'.

he's a media whore. like it or not he's front and central in the news and he's calling himself 'reverend' and he's there with his 'church'. he may not have the mainstream churches good housekeeping stamp of approval but he's out there, as some kind of misanthropic beacon of christendom.


And Stalin was "out there" as a beacon of atheism, and so were the French Revolutionaries who butchered half a million people in the name of "reason."

Does that mean we should accuse the thought system of Atheims with those atrocities or just a few deranged nutcases who committed the atrocities?

careful sallyanne, you're jumping all over the place and not answering questions. atheism isn't a core set of beliefs with a dogma or central text. there is no such thing as the thought system of atheism. if you'd like to discuss that perhaps a separate thread is in order.

and by your own logic, you'll need to include a list of stellar, gold star atheists on your list, as well.

fred phelps is front and center, and insofar as the irs believes him, he is a reverend speaking on behalf of is church. whether or not you think he's a nutcase doesn't preclude people from thinking that this is what conservative christianity looks like..

all hyperbole and snark aside - where is mainstream christianity's response to this nutjob? let's be clear - i'm not asking you to defend his actions because i think it's indefensible and you are saying you think he's a nut. where's the christian condemnation, in public, en masse, for he and his ilk?

like it or not, silence on this issue IS tacit approval, of both his means and his message.

[sidhe]

How can there be a stable, common definition?

People migrate toward whichever aspects of the doctrine meet their individual needs and disregard the rest. The label of "Christianity" meets a social grouping need, but no individual in that group would actually agree with any other on all points.

But if someone wants to try to assemble a list of beliefs and tenets common to all who call themselves "Christian," I'm all ears.

I'll put on some popcorn.

this. one person's mainstream christianity is another's heretical sect. my parents freaked and almost didn't 'allow' me to attend my private liberal arts college because it was founded by 'methodists' and according to the fundy 'rents, they're so outisde the mainstream as to be tangentially christian.

don't get me started on what they thought about catholics ;)

the ever growing chism between conservative and liberal christianity, is in my view, one of the best arguments for agnosticism. if the christians of the world can't see eye to eye on what defines a christian or even salvation, is either thing even possible? at what point then, does christianity cease to be a religion and become a philosophy or a worldview?

Why are the options "conservative Christianity" or "liberal Christianity" else "agnosticism"? Methinks that's a false dichotomy. You've also got Judaism (which, in terms of theology, is radically different from Christianity), Islam (also different), and the Baha'i Faith (also, radically different) just within the major mid-eastern derivatives. Then you've got Hinduism and Buddhism to round out major world religions, unless you want to count Shintoism as major, and right there you have an exponential number of variants on deity, non-deity, and metaphysics.

So, more accurately, no one knows what the fuck they're talking about, so agnosticism is the sensible approach. ;)

[SallyAnne]

One site I also like to point people to is the entire archive of this comic strip, though the link points to just one example. It is not a Christian cartoon:)

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/05/02/pill/


No kidding?:p

What do you guys think of that? Effective? Offensive? What?

David


Dunno, nothing really, I didn't really think anything of it...:dunno:

[SallyAnne]

careful sallyanne, you're jumping all over the place and not answering questions. atheism isn't a core set of beliefs with a dogma or central text. there is no such thing as the thought system of atheism.


Yeah, so atheists keep telling me, and yet they all speak from the same choir sheet. There is such a thing as the belief of unbelief backed up by science, secular ideology and such like.

[miss djax]

How can there be a stable, common definition?

People migrate toward whichever aspects of the doctrine meet their individual needs and disregard the rest. The label of "Christianity" meets a social grouping need, but no individual in that group would actually agree with any other on all points.

But if someone wants to try to assemble a list of beliefs and tenets common to all who call themselves "Christian," I'm all ears.

I'll put on some popcorn.

this. one person's mainstream christianity is another's heretical sect. my parents freaked and almost didn't 'allow' me to attend my private liberal arts college because it was founded by 'methodists' and according to the fundy 'rents, they're so outisde the mainstream as to be tangentially christian.

don't get me started on what they thought about catholics ;)

the ever growing chism between conservative and liberal christianity, is in my view, one of the best arguments for agnosticism. if the christians of the world can't see eye to eye on what defines a christian or even salvation, is either thing even possible? at what point then, does christianity cease to be a religion and become a philosophy or a worldview?

Why are the options "conservative Christianity" or "liberal Christianity" else "agnosticism"? Methinks that's a false dichotomy. You've also got Judaism (which, in terms of theology, is radically different from Christianity), Islam (also different), and the Baha'i Faith (also, radically different) just within the major mid-eastern derivatives. Then you've got Hinduism and Buddhism to round out major world religions, unless you want to count Shintoism as major, and right there you have an exponential number of variants on deity, non-deity, and metaphysics.

So, more accurately, no one knows what the fuck they're talking about, so agnosticism is the sensible approach. ;)

touche :D i don't think that agnosticism is necessarily the last stop along the road, because you are right, there are a whole lot of other choices out there.

i think for some folks, esp those raised in ultra orthodox and dogmatic ways, if you don't end up a believer (liberal vs conservative) in terms of how you are raised, the next path seems to be agnosticism. then a seeker stage which could lead anywhere. at least that has been my experience.

ymmv :)

[SallyAnne]

fred phelps is front and center, and insofar as the irs believes him, he is a reverend speaking on behalf of is church. whether or not you think he's a nutcase doesn't preclude people from thinking that this is what conservative christianity looks like..

all hyperbole and snark aside - where is mainstream christianity's response to this nutjob? let's be clear - i'm not asking you to defend his actions because i think it's indefensible and you are saying you think he's a nut. where's the christian condemnation, in public, en masse, for he and his ilk?

like it or not, silence on this issue IS tacit approval, of both his means and his message.



I'm a mainstream Christian and I publicly declare that he is a hateful nutcase and nothing that I identify with Christianity. It's like Hent said, comparing Hitler with Mother Teresa.

I hadn't even heard of Phelps until after a decade of being a Christian, so his tentacles aren't even powerful within the worldwide Christian community. In fact, the first I ever heard of him was from atheists, they seem to love to refer to him because it suits their agenda.

I'm an English girl living in NZ, we don't have extremists like him down here, and I can't even think of an English equivilent either. So no, Phelps certainly doesn't represent conservative or fundy-ism in the Christian world at large, just his own small pond of America. But I've yet to meet ANY conservative Christian who agrees with him so I don't even think he represents them, and yeah, nearly EVERY Christian I come across on-line condemns him when his name unfortunately crops up so I dunno what Christians you're referring to who agree with him.:confused:

[Pendaric]

I would have said that in the UK Phelps is at least as recognizable a name as any of the other Christian preachers, due to a documentary that Louis Theroux did on the Phelps family a couple of years ago, and due to the recent publicity they got when they threatened to come here and picket a couple of months ago.

Whilst I think they're batshit crazy and reprehensible in their actions, they do know their scripture and can give good biblical back up for their stance. Some of the bible does support what they are saying.

[SallyAnne]

I would have said that in the UK Phelps is at least as recognizable a name as any of the other Christian preachers, due to a documentary that Louis Theroux did on the Phelps family a couple of years ago, and due to the recent publicity they got when they threatened to come here and picket a couple of months ago.

Whilst I think they're batshit crazy and reprehensible in their actions, they do know their scripture and can give good biblical back up for their stance. Some of the bible does support what they are saying.


I saw that Louis Theroux doco on Phelps last year I think. LOL. You know if it's on one of Therox's "weird weekends" it's got "joke" written all over it.

Sorry, but he really isn't as well-known as Americans seem to presume, he may have a big mouth in America, but he doesn't affect us anywhere else, he's regarded as a joke.

[Pendaric]

I'm not American. I'm from the UK.

[SallyAnne]

I'm not American. I'm from the UK.

Ok. Well I'm from the UK too and I'm a Christian and I hadn't heard of the guy until a couple of years ago when some atheists on-line started going on about him.

I didn't have a clue who they were on about.:confused:

They seemed to delight in educating me on who he was. I guess he's more famous amongst the atheist than some Christians.:dunno:

[JamesBannon]

We have our fair share of nut jobs here too!

[SallyAnne]

they threatened to come here and picket a couple of months ago.


They were refused entry weren't they?

[SallyAnne]

We have our fair share of nut jobs here too!


LOL. Yeah, but you can't count the government.:p

[miss djax]

fred phelps is front and center, and insofar as the irs believes him, he is a reverend speaking on behalf of is church. whether or not you think he's a nutcase doesn't preclude people from thinking that this is what conservative christianity looks like..

all hyperbole and snark aside - where is mainstream christianity's response to this nutjob? let's be clear - i'm not asking you to defend his actions because i think it's indefensible and you are saying you think he's a nut. where's the christian condemnation, in public, en masse, for he and his ilk?

like it or not, silence on this issue IS tacit approval, of both his means and his message.



I'm a mainstream Christian and I publicly declare that he is a hateful nutcase and nothing that I identify with Christianity. It's like Hent said, comparing Hitler with Mother Teresa.

I hadn't even heard of Phelps until after a decade of being a Christian, so his tentacles aren't even powerful within the worldwide Christian community. In fact, the first I ever heard of him was from atheists, they seem to love to refer to him because it suits their agenda.

I'm an English girl living in NZ, we don't have extremists like him down here, and I can't even think of an English equivilent either. So no, Phelps certainly doesn't represent conservative or fundy-ism in the Christian world at large, just his own small pond of America. But I've yet to meet ANY conservative Christian who agrees with him so I don't even think he represents them, and yeah, nearly EVERY Christian I come across on-line condemns him when his name unfortunately crops up so I dunno what Christians you're referring to who agree with him.:confused:

ahh, makes more sense..i do think that phelps is a particularly detestable american phenomenon. altho i have heard from another forum i'm on he has made his way to i think sweden? i'd google to find out but then i'd feel dirty. ;)

i apologize - i would have phrased my questions differently had i known you were on the other side of the pond.

the 'you' i was speaking to meant more mainstream christianity, particularly in the us.

phelps message is profoundly vile. most reasonable people agree. unfortunately in the us the lack of systemic rejection from church leadership in toto is a giant issue. not that i think there is a giant conglomerate of religious factions, sort of like the justice league ;) but hopefully you get my drift.

[SallyAnne]

Whilst I think they're batshit crazy and reprehensible in their actions, they do know their scripture and can give good biblical back up for their stance. Some of the bible does support what they are saying.



Are you an atheist?

[Pendaric]

they threatened to come here and picket a couple of months ago.


They were refused entry weren't they?

Yes, although they then claimed that they had followers in the UK who would picket on their behalf as I recall.

I don't think anything actually came of it, although there was plenty of media coverage of the entire thing.

[Pendaric]

Whilst I think they're batshit crazy and reprehensible in their actions, they do know their scripture and can give good biblical back up for their stance. Some of the bible does support what they are saying.

Are you an atheist?

Yep. And it's possible that as you say, atheists on message boards do tend to tune in to the more objectionable preachers to support their confirmation bias.

But Phelps and his family do seem to actively target the media to increase their profile, and they have had more general media coverage in this country because of the Theroux show and the recent picketing threat than any other preacher I can think of.

[SallyAnne]

fred phelps is front and center, and insofar as the irs believes him, he is a reverend speaking on behalf of is church. whether or not you think he's a nutcase doesn't preclude people from thinking that this is what conservative christianity looks like..

all hyperbole and snark aside - where is mainstream christianity's response to this nutjob? let's be clear - i'm not asking you to defend his actions because i think it's indefensible and you are saying you think he's a nut. where's the christian condemnation, in public, en masse, for he and his ilk?

like it or not, silence on this issue IS tacit approval, of both his means and his message.



I'm a mainstream Christian and I publicly declare that he is a hateful nutcase and nothing that I identify with Christianity. It's like Hent said, comparing Hitler with Mother Teresa.

I hadn't even heard of Phelps until after a decade of being a Christian, so his tentacles aren't even powerful within the worldwide Christian community. In fact, the first I ever heard of him was from atheists, they seem to love to refer to him because it suits their agenda.

I'm an English girl living in NZ, we don't have extremists like him down here, and I can't even think of an English equivilent either. So no, Phelps certainly doesn't represent conservative or fundy-ism in the Christian world at large, just his own small pond of America. But I've yet to meet ANY conservative Christian who agrees with him so I don't even think he represents them, and yeah, nearly EVERY Christian I come across on-line condemns him when his name unfortunately crops up so I dunno what Christians you're referring to who agree with him.:confused:

ahh, makes more sense..i do think that phelps is a particularly detestable american phenomenon. altho i have heard from another forum i'm on he has made his way to i think sweden? i'd google to find out but then i'd feel dirty. ;)

i apologize - i would have phrased my questions differently had i known you were on the other side of the pond.

the 'you' i was speaking to meant more mainstream christianity, particularly in the us.

phelps message is profoundly vile. most reasonable people agree. unfortunately in the us the lack of systemic rejection from church leadership in toto is a giant issue. not that i think there is a giant conglomerate of religious factions, sort of like the justice league ;) but hopefully you get my drift.



yeah I do, maybe the mainstream Christians of America should rise up and go picket Phelps. But to do such a thing is to stoop to his low level.

[Lisa0315]

Oh, I did leave that out.

I can know that they have not simply rejected God's revelation the same way I can know who has received it, and Scripture supports this.

By testimony, those who bear witness of salvation by God, so those who have not testify that they have not, nor have they been called.

Do you think hearing is enough? The Jews heard the very voice of God and did not believe. Was it not enough to see miracles for them to believe? Was it purposeful rejection, Hen? No, Isaiah tells us that the Jews were purposefully blinded to their Messiah so that the Gentiles could be grafted in.

Why do you think Jesus says, Blessed are they which do not see or hear but believe? (paraphrased and not cited)

The emphasis there, Hen, is on Blessed! It is a gift. Those who hear and those who see cannot unless God blesses them with sight and hearing.

Did you ever wonder why the disciples were more successful in obtaining converts than Jesus was? There were 120 faithful by the end. Out of the thousands who followed him during his ministry, only 120 remained. They were not given the gift of belief.

What did the centurion pray except, Lord Help my Unbelief! Jesus answered that prayer. How could there be unbelief when one was standing right before the King of Kings except that belief is a gift, an answered prayer.

Why do we pray for the unsaved? Do we pray that we can get them under the sound of preaching, or that we may persuade them? No, we pray for intercession from Almighty God that their hearts might believe. We ask for God to GIVE THEM FAITH.

There are certainly those who are given the gift and reject it, but you spend the years I have talking to atheists and you are going to find out...They have nothing, not a single moment, not a single experience, nothing that says that they were called and they simply rejected the voice of God.

So, Hen, my evidence is the same as yours. My evidence is the testimony of all the atheists I have talked with who tell me that they have never believed, not for a second, not had a moment of doubt. Do you know how many have told me that they WISHED there was a God? Not all of them, certainly, but MANY of them.

Do you know how difficult it is to answer those who say they WISH IT? I have talked two of them in doing a chapter by chapter verse by verse study with me and having them pray if they could, if they would. They tried, not as a test, but they simply COULD NOT BELIEVE.

So, there HAS to be something more or our God is a monster who condemned most of his creation from the foundation of the earth.

So, of those 1.8 billion estimated atheists, how many were called Hen? How many truly rejected and how many simply never received the gift of faith? You cannot even stomach the possibility. You must insist that they HAD to consciously and purposefully reject Jesus Christ, but THEY DIDN'T. They didn't reject God no more than all of those thousand of followers of Christ. They simply did not receive the gift of belief.

Lisa

Lisa,

I can equally tell you of the many that have. Heck, we just have one do the altar call at our church yesterday. Praise God. The bible tells us that those that seek with all of their heart will find Him.

Matthew 7:7-12
7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! 12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

A problem that I have seen is that some seek but will only accept what pleases them or what edifies them. The Jews (general statement) did this. Their unbelief, even after first hand witness, was due to their own pride. I can cite many examples of this.

Many is not all. I have met half and half. Those who were once Christians and stopped believing, and they believed as fervantly as you and I do. Others who have never ever not even in childhood considered that Christianity might be true. A good example? JackRabbit, or you might know him as Faster_JackRabbit was raised in a fundie household, but didn't believe, never, not for a single moment. He has never been gifted with belief.

I had head knowledge of Jesus Christ from age 5 to age 37. I did not gain heart knowledge until just five years ago. I was not gifted with belief until then.

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

Whilst I think they're batshit crazy and reprehensible in their actions, they do know their scripture and can give good biblical back up for their stance. Some of the bible does support what they are saying.

Are you an atheist?

Yep.


Thought so. I've never yet come across a Christian who gives any of his ranting biblical credence.

[Pendaric]

Thought so. I've never yet come across a Christian who gives any of his ranting biblical credence.

Or rather, most prefer not to acknowledge the less child friendly bits and cherry pick the bits they prefer to read.

[SallyAnne]

[QUOTE=SallyAnne;23786]
But Phelps and his family do seem to actively target the media to increase their profile, and they have had more general media coverage in this country because of the Theroux show and the recent picketing threat than any other preacher I can think of.


Well Theroux is in the business of covering the "weird" and extreme. He doesn't cover anything that isn't sensationalist.

Theroux wouldn't feature someone like Charles Stanley, lol.:D It's only the fruitloops who make it to Theroux Fame.:D

[SallyAnne]

Thought so. I've never yet come across a Christian who gives any of his ranting biblical credence.

Or rather, most prefer not to acknowledge the less child friendly bits and cherry pick the bits they prefer to read.


Actually, most atheists prefer to cling to Phelps so they can damn Christianity by association, even if the majority of Christianity doesn't agree with Phelps' "cherry picking" from the OT of how we should stone gays.

[TySixtus]

Every Christian "Cherry Picks". In that regard, the fundamentalist and the liberal are the same. I could talk for hours on the topic but I won't bore you guys with it.

[SallyAnne]

Every Christian "Cherry Picks".


Every Atheist "Cherry Picks" too. It's just a shame they don't cherry pick the bit about believing in Jesus as Lord and Saviour. They seem to prefer Phelps cherry picking for them....

[TySixtus]

How/what do atheists "cherry pick"?

[miss djax]

yeah I do, maybe the mainstream Christians of America should rise up and go picket Phelps. But to do such a thing is to stoop to his low level.

hows that? i think mainstream christians who dismiss his influence do so at their own peril. tacit approval is still approval.

while he's extreme, he's using the same bible verses as quite a few others *ahem rick warren* to say that there's a problem with being gay.

speaking of cherry picking :

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

[Lisa0315]

fred phelps is front and center, and insofar as the irs believes him, he is a reverend speaking on behalf of is church. whether or not you think he's a nutcase doesn't preclude people from thinking that this is what conservative christianity looks like..

all hyperbole and snark aside - where is mainstream christianity's response to this nutjob? let's be clear - i'm not asking you to defend his actions because i think it's indefensible and you are saying you think he's a nut. where's the christian condemnation, in public, en masse, for he and his ilk?

like it or not, silence on this issue IS tacit approval, of both his means and his message.



I'm a mainstream Christian and I publicly declare that he is a hateful nutcase and nothing that I identify with Christianity. It's like Hent said, comparing Hitler with Mother Teresa.

I hadn't even heard of Phelps until after a decade of being a Christian, so his tentacles aren't even powerful within the worldwide Christian community. In fact, the first I ever heard of him was from atheists, they seem to love to refer to him because it suits their agenda.

I'm an English girl living in NZ, we don't have extremists like him down here, and I can't even think of an English equivilent either. So no, Phelps certainly doesn't represent conservative or fundy-ism in the Christian world at large, just his own small pond of America. But I've yet to meet ANY conservative Christian who agrees with him so I don't even think he represents them, and yeah, nearly EVERY Christian I come across on-line condemns him when his name unfortunately crops up so I dunno what Christians you're referring to who agree with him.:confused:

Well, there goes the whole thing...My point is how the average American living here in the USA perceives Christianity because of these whackos.

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

they threatened to come here and picket a couple of months ago.


They were refused entry weren't they?

Yes, although they then claimed that they had followers in the UK who would picket on their behalf as I recall.


And did these so-called "followers" picket on their behalf?

I don't think anything actually came of it, although there was plenty of media coverage of the entire thing.


Sure, the media lap up that kind of stuff....they love all that sensationalist drama...

[SallyAnne]

fred phelps is front and center, and insofar as the irs believes him, he is a reverend speaking on behalf of is church. whether or not you think he's a nutcase doesn't preclude people from thinking that this is what conservative christianity looks like..

all hyperbole and snark aside - where is mainstream christianity's response to this nutjob? let's be clear - i'm not asking you to defend his actions because i think it's indefensible and you are saying you think he's a nut. where's the christian condemnation, in public, en masse, for he and his ilk?

like it or not, silence on this issue IS tacit approval, of both his means and his message.



I'm a mainstream Christian and I publicly declare that he is a hateful nutcase and nothing that I identify with Christianity. It's like Hent said, comparing Hitler with Mother Teresa.

I hadn't even heard of Phelps until after a decade of being a Christian, so his tentacles aren't even powerful within the worldwide Christian community. In fact, the first I ever heard of him was from atheists, they seem to love to refer to him because it suits their agenda.

I'm an English girl living in NZ, we don't have extremists like him down here, and I can't even think of an English equivilent either. So no, Phelps certainly doesn't represent conservative or fundy-ism in the Christian world at large, just his own small pond of America. But I've yet to meet ANY conservative Christian who agrees with him so I don't even think he represents them, and yeah, nearly EVERY Christian I come across on-line condemns him when his name unfortunately crops up so I dunno what Christians you're referring to who agree with him.:confused:

Well, there goes the whole thing...My point is how the average American living here in the USA perceives Christianity because of these whackos.

Lisa


Well, that doesn't say much for mainstream Americans when outside America he's regarded as a kook.:confused:

It really does surprise me to think that Americans could be that lacking in discernment, it's brodering on stupidity, but maybe you're right and they just believe what they're spoonfed by Phelps & Clan.

[Lisa0315]

I do not think a rally to preach against extremists like Phelps would be stooping to his level. Instead, I think it would be greatly appreciated, AND bring some credibility back to the real men of God.

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

I do not think a rally to preach against extremists like Phelps would be stooping to his level. Instead, I think it would be greatly appreciated, AND bring some credibility back to the real men of God.

Lisa



But to even give the kook any attention is to give him credibility. It's like acknowledging that he has influence, but from what you're saying, he does have influence and that's scary to think that mainstream people could be so easily persuaded by such hatred.:eek:

[David B]

How/what do atheists "cherry pick"?

Anyone who doesn't quote the whole Bible could be accused of cherry picking.

I quite often quote Matt 10 34-37, but to add balance to the usual Christian cherry picking of the Sermon on the Mount, claims that Christianity supports family values and stuff.

34: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35: For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36: And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37: He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Also, because it strikes me as classic cultism.

David

[SallyAnne]

I think it would be greatly appreciated, AND bring some credibility back to the real men of God.

Lisa



I truly don't think that real men of God like David Pawson and Charles Stanley have lost ANY credibility because of the likes of Fred Phelps.

That's like saying, they'll only have credibility according to the bad standard of Fred Phelps if they oppose him. That's really not the standard of Christianity. Jesus Christ is the standard so it's easy to see that Fred Phelps doesn't represent Him and that real men of God like Stanley and Pawson are already credible.

[Lisa0315]

They were refused entry weren't they?

Yes, although they then claimed that they had followers in the UK who would picket on their behalf as I recall.


And did these so-called "followers" picket on their behalf?

I don't think anything actually came of it, although there was plenty of media coverage of the entire thing.


Sure, the media lap up that kind of stuff....they love all that sensationalist drama...

I wish you were in the States to answer this question, but why do you suppose...and anyone else, please jump in for this one...

So, if people are supposed to have sense enough to know the difference between Phelps and a real Christian, why did Conservatives go after Obama trying to associate him with his crazy-assed pastor?

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

yeah I do, maybe the mainstream Christians of America should rise up and go picket Phelps. But to do such a thing is to stoop to his low level.

hows that? i think mainstream christians who dismiss his influence do so at their own peril. tacit approval is still approval.



What approval? I've never heard or seen a Christian approve of Phelps.

And Phelps has NEVER been a Christian example to me, so it's not like I regard him as a brother. I regard him as a nutcase loony.

Who can talk reasonably with a lunatic? It's like proposing a meeting with the suicide bombers of 9/11 about how wrong they are.

[SallyAnne]

Yes, although they then claimed that they had followers in the UK who would picket on their behalf as I recall.


And did these so-called "followers" picket on their behalf?

I don't think anything actually came of it, although there was plenty of media coverage of the entire thing.


Sure, the media lap up that kind of stuff....they love all that sensationalist drama...

I wish you were in the States to answer this question, but why do you suppose...and anyone else, please jump in for this one...

So, if people are supposed to have sense enough to know the difference between Phelps and a real Christian, why did Conservatives go after Obama trying to associate him with his crazy-assed pastor?

Lisa


Because Obama was running for Office and claimed that his pastor was the biggest influence on his life. So naturally, people want to know what this pastor is about, unfortunately, he turned out to be crazy-assed.:eek:

I think if John McCain had said that Phelps was the biggest influence on his life, there would have been equal "crazy ass" alarm.

[miss djax]

Well, that doesn't say much for mainstream Americans when outside America he's regarded as a kook.:confused:

It really does surprise me to think that Americans could be that lacking in discernment, it's brodering on stupidity, but maybe you're right and they just believe what they're spoonfed by Phelps & Clan.

you're missing the point here. no one is giving credence to what they are saying. no one is looking at phelps and co and saying 'wow, i guess god DOES hate gay people' after listening to their wretched behavior.

what happens is that their hatespeak pushes together disparate groups to have counter protests, like recent ones involving the glbt community and military families.

and add to it, the fact that phelps and co are using the same bible verses to condemn homosexuality that other famous fundies are using, and it paints a terrible picture of christianity. like i said in my earlier posts, its making people think 'what a bunch of idiots'. not just the phelps, its extrapolating to christianity. thats why i said phelps discussions always include an element of 'this is why i don't go to church'.

thats why i keep saying - the capital c CHURCH needs to stand up to these idiots if they want to attempt any chance at relevancy on social issues.

or don't. i swear every time one of the phelps clan says something stupid on howard stern or protests at the funeral of some kid who died in iraq and then hear some statistic about how people don't go to church its like one giant feedback loop.

i don't hear 'fuck those far-right sinners who twist the bible to meet their own selfish ends'. i hear a resounding chorus of 'fuck those christians'.

[Lisa0315]

I think it would be greatly appreciated, AND bring some credibility back to the real men of God.

Lisa



I truly don't think that real men of God like David Pawson and Charles Stanley have lost ANY credibility because of the likes of Fred Phelps.

That's like saying, they'll only have credibility according to the bad standard of Fred Phelps if they oppose him. That's really not the standard of Christianity. Jesus Christ is the standard so it's easy to see that Fred Phelps doesn't represent Him and that real men of God like Stanley and Pawson are already credible.

Actually, I think it is hard for you to discern that if you are not here. I am also concerned that you are projecting what other Christians think rather than trying to see this from the eyes of non-believers. They do not see the distinctions like we do, thus, this thread was started attempting to define what is the standard for Conservatives and Liberals.

Imagine yourself in their shoes for a moment. They do not know many Christians and the experiences they've had have been pretty negative. People are telling them they are going to hell. Their President (Bush Sr) said that they weren't real citizens or shouldn't be. The media shows abortion bombings, planes going into buildings, famous preachers saying that it is the fault of gays and pro-choicers, a war is raged and their president (George W) claims to be taking orders from God.

Atheists cannot distinguish between religions much less what flavor Christians are. They rate religions on who threatens them the most and who leaves them alone, and whose doctrine promises the worst end.

From an atheist perspective, can you see the harm that not rallying togehter against the likes of Phelps and Falwell?

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

Well, that doesn't say much for mainstream Americans when outside America he's regarded as a kook.:confused:

It really does surprise me to think that Americans could be that lacking in discernment, it's brodering on stupidity, but maybe you're right and they just believe what they're spoonfed by Phelps & Clan.

you're missing the point here. no one is giving credence to what they are saying. no one is looking at phelps and co and saying 'wow, i guess god DOES hate gay people' after listening to their wretched behavior.

what happens is that their hatespeak pushes together disparate groups to have counter protests, like recent ones involving the glbt community and military families.

and add to it, the fact that phelps and co are using the same bible verses to condemn homosexuality that other famous fundies are using, and it paints a terrible picture of christianity. like i said in my earlier posts, its making people think 'what a bunch of idiots'. not just the phelps, its extrapolating to christianity. thats why i said phelps discussions always include an element of 'this is why i don't go to church'.

thats why i keep saying - the capital c CHURCH needs to stand up to these idiots if they want to attempt any chance at relevancy on social issues.

or don't. i swear every time one of the phelps clan says something stupid on howard stern or protests at the funeral of some kid who died in iraq and then hear some statistic about how people don't go to church its like one giant feedback loop.

i don't hear 'fuck those far-right sinners who twist the bible to meet their own selfish ends'. i hear a resounding chorus of 'fuck those christians'.




I'm not responsible for Fred Phelps, just as mainstream Muslims are not responsible for the 9/11 bombers.

The Church? Which one? There's quite a few denominations but I've never heard any from any denom aligning with his kookiness apart from his own.

Fred Phelps is not representative of Christianity, and if he was I think I would have heard about him a decade before I did. Like I said, it's always the athiests who seem to cling to him and it was athiests who were clammouring to tell me about him.

If anyone is going to judge me by Fred Phelps then so be it. But that's like judging Muslims by 9/11 bombers. It's inane and so are the people who make those judgements.

[SallyAnne]

I think it would be greatly appreciated, AND bring some credibility back to the real men of God.

Lisa



I truly don't think that real men of God like David Pawson and Charles Stanley have lost ANY credibility because of the likes of Fred Phelps.

That's like saying, they'll only have credibility according to the bad standard of Fred Phelps if they oppose him. That's really not the standard of Christianity. Jesus Christ is the standard so it's easy to see that Fred Phelps doesn't represent Him and that real men of God like Stanley and Pawson are already credible.

Actually, I think it is hard for you to discern that if you are not here. I am also concerned that you are projecting what other Christians think rather than trying to see this from the eyes of non-believers.


I'm saying what *I* think. And yeah, thank God I'm not in America, it sounds pretty whacked if people actually give credence to a lunatic.

I was once a non-believer so I think I can see this from the eyes of a non-believer. You've got Fred Phelps over there claiming to be a Christian mouthpiece whilst preaching hatred in a way that Jesus Christ never did. So I think I would give the non-believer a bit more credit for being able to tell the difference. But you're saying they're stupid and can't tell the difference.

That's like saying people can't tell the difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler.

[Pendaric]

Thought so. I've never yet come across a Christian who gives any of his ranting biblical credence.

Or rather, most prefer not to acknowledge the less child friendly bits and cherry pick the bits they prefer to read.


Actually, most atheists prefer to cling to Phelps so they can damn Christianity by association, even if the majority of Christianity doesn't agree with Phelps' "cherry picking" from the OT of how we should stone gays.

There's plenty of NT stuff against gays as well. It might not be as PC as it once was for the Church to be openly anti-gay, but without doubt the bible, both OT and NT, condemns homosexuality.

[Pendaric]

I'm saying what *I* think. And yeah, thank God I'm not in America, it sounds pretty whacked if people actually give credence to a lunatic.

I was once a non-believer so I think I can see this from the eyes of a non-believer. You've got Fred Phelps over there claiming to be a Christian mouthpiece whilst preaching hatred in a way that Jesus Christ never did. So I think I would give the non-believer a bit more credit for being able to tell the difference. But you're saying they're stupid and can't tell the difference.

That's like saying people can't tell the difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler.

He has as much right to call himself a Christian as you do, and to state that what he is saying is a Christian viewpoint.

Every denomination out there claims to be the one true Church. He has as much credence as any other denomination which interprets the bible to suit their own particular biases.

The Catholic church is the only one which can claim to be the original. Everything else is preaching heresy of some sort or other.

[sidhe]

I'm saying what *I* think. And yeah, thank God I'm not in America, it sounds pretty whacked if people actually give credence to a lunatic.

I was once a non-believer so I think I can see this from the eyes of a non-believer. You've got Fred Phelps over there claiming to be a Christian mouthpiece whilst preaching hatred in a way that Jesus Christ never did. So I think I would give the non-believer a bit more credit for being able to tell the difference. But you're saying they're stupid and can't tell the difference.

That's like saying people can't tell the difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler.

He has as much right to call himself a Christian as you do, and to state that what he is saying is a Christian viewpoint.

Every denomination out there claims to be the one true Church. He has as much credence as any other denomination which interprets the bible to suit their own particular biases.

The Catholic church is the only one which can claim to be the original. Everything else is preaching heresy of some sort or other.

I'd say the Eastern Orthodox can claim to be the original...the Catholics don't consider them heretics, just fundamentally in disagreement on minor points.

[miss djax]

Well, that doesn't say much for mainstream Americans when outside America he's regarded as a kook.:confused:

It really does surprise me to think that Americans could be that lacking in discernment, it's brodering on stupidity, but maybe you're right and they just believe what they're spoonfed by Phelps & Clan.

you're missing the point here. no one is giving credence to what they are saying. no one is looking at phelps and co and saying 'wow, i guess god DOES hate gay people' after listening to their wretched behavior.

what happens is that their hatespeak pushes together disparate groups to have counter protests, like recent ones involving the glbt community and military families.

and add to it, the fact that phelps and co are using the same bible verses to condemn homosexuality that other famous fundies are using, and it paints a terrible picture of christianity. like i said in my earlier posts, its making people think 'what a bunch of idiots'. not just the phelps, its extrapolating to christianity. thats why i said phelps discussions always include an element of 'this is why i don't go to church'.

thats why i keep saying - the capital c CHURCH needs to stand up to these idiots if they want to attempt any chance at relevancy on social issues.

or don't. i swear every time one of the phelps clan says something stupid on howard stern or protests at the funeral of some kid who died in iraq and then hear some statistic about how people don't go to church its like one giant feedback loop.

i don't hear 'fuck those far-right sinners who twist the bible to meet their own selfish ends'. i hear a resounding chorus of 'fuck those christians'.




I'm not responsible for Fred Phelps, just as mainstream Muslims are not responsible for the 9/11 bombers.

The Church? Which one? There's quite a few denominations but I've never heard any from any denom aligning with his kookiness apart from his own.

Fred Phelps is not representative of Christianity, and if he was I think I would have heard about him a decade before I did. Like I said, it's always the athiests who seem to cling to him and it was athiests who were clammouring to tell me about him.

If anyone is going to judge me by Fred Phelps then so be it. But that's like judging Muslims by 9/11 bombers. It's inane and so are the people who make those judgements.


you're still solidly missing the point. no one's aligning with phelps. but the lack of denoucement, coupled with some big wig's like the pope, rick warren, and james dobson using the same bible verses against those who are gay are equated with, i would hazard, a large number of people as being one and the same. it makes it LOOK LIKE the rest of those folks are as out of touch and effed up as phelps and co. and then summarily dismissed out of hand. ALL OF THEM.

feel free to go ahead and ignore this. i'm sure it might make you feel better than you think he's a nutbar, but why isn't 'your' (imperial your used here) church saying the same thing? tacit approval is still approval.

its a big ole reason why more and more people think that the church, and christianity, is irrelevant.

[miss djax]

That's like saying people can't tell the difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler.


not as much as you might think, actually

http://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Position-Mother-Teresa-Practice/dp/185984054X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239663611&sr=8-4

[SallyAnne]

Imagine yourself in their shoes for a moment.


No need to imagine, I used to be in their shoes.



They do not know many Christians and the experiences they've had have been pretty negative. People are telling them they are going to hell.

Then I would advise them to listen to Charles Stanley, David Pawson and Joyce Meyer or any of the other umpteen ministers who don't preach "hell and brimstone"


Their President (Bush Sr) said that they weren't real citizens or shouldn't be.

That's politics, not the message of Jesus Christ which is what Christianity is supposed to represent. Charles Stanley is more of a mouthpiece for the Christian message than a President. Or are we now going to descend into the simplistic balck and white historical "religion is to blame for everthing" and not distinguish between politics and religion even when it's blatantly obvious?



The media shows abortion bombings, planes going into buildings, famous preachers saying that it is the fault of gays and pro-choicers, a war is raged and their president (George W) claims to be taking orders from God.

The media is in the business of capitalising on everything that is negative. And?


Atheists cannot distinguish between religions much less what flavor Christians are.


That's absolute bunkum. I used to be an atheist, well actually, I was an agnostic. Trust me Lisa, atheists are really not as stupid and as unanalytical you are intent on portrarying them. They probably know more about religion and the different flavours of Christianity than most Christians.



They rate religions on who threatens them the most and who leaves them alone, and whose doctrine promises the worst end.

From an atheist perspective, can you see the harm that not rallying togehter against the likes of Phelps and Falwell?

Lisa


I've already stated my disagreement with them, I am against them, I don't regard them as brothers. I've even stated who I am aligned with, Stanley and Pawson and many others who are in NO-WAY comparable to Phelps & Clan.

So what else do you want me to do? Stone them? Crucify them? I don't agree with them so you trying to imply that Christians like myself sit silent and say nothing when I'm on an atheist forum speaking against them is pretty galling.

[SallyAnne]

you're still solidly missing the point. no one's aligning with phelps. but the lack of denoucement, coupled with some big wig's like the pope, rick warren, and james dobson using the same bible verses against those who are gay are equated with, i would hazard, a large number of people as being one and the same. it makes it LOOK LIKE the rest of those folks are as out of touch and effed up as phelps and co. and then summarily dismissed out of hand. ALL OF THEM.

feel free to go ahead and ignore this. i'm sure it might make you feel better than you think he's a nutbar, but why isn't 'your' (imperial your used here) church saying the same thing?


I am here as a representative of the "Church" and I have said something against him. What else do you want me to do? I'm not an American, I'm not in the American Church and I don't identify or align with Phelps. So what do you expect me to do?

Should I go around harrassing Muslims because of what the few extremists did in the name of Islam? Or should I use my own critical thinking and discern that the few loons don't represent the majority. Just as the majority of Christians I strongly suspect don't represent Phelps, unless you're trying to claim that they do?

It seems to me that you want the mainstream Christians like Warren and his ilk to not oppose the gay agenda or to stipulate that marriage is between a man and a woman. That has nothing to do with Phelps.

[TySixtus]

SallyAnne,

You're obviously responding to a lot of diffeent people so if you don't get to it, that's fine. But earlier I asked what, or how, atheists cherry pick. Could you clarify what you meant by that?

[Lisa0315]

you're missing the point here. no one is giving credence to what they are saying. no one is looking at phelps and co and saying 'wow, i guess god DOES hate gay people' after listening to their wretched behavior.

what happens is that their hatespeak pushes together disparate groups to have counter protests, like recent ones involving the glbt community and military families.

and add to it, the fact that phelps and co are using the same bible verses to condemn homosexuality that other famous fundies are using, and it paints a terrible picture of christianity. like i said in my earlier posts, its making people think 'what a bunch of idiots'. not just the phelps, its extrapolating to christianity. thats why i said phelps discussions always include an element of 'this is why i don't go to church'.

thats why i keep saying - the capital c CHURCH needs to stand up to these idiots if they want to attempt any chance at relevancy on social issues.

or don't. i swear every time one of the phelps clan says something stupid on howard stern or protests at the funeral of some kid who died in iraq and then hear some statistic about how people don't go to church its like one giant feedback loop.

i don't hear 'fuck those far-right sinners who twist the bible to meet their own selfish ends'. i hear a resounding chorus of 'fuck those christians'.




I'm not responsible for Fred Phelps, just as mainstream Muslims are not responsible for the 9/11 bombers.

The Church? Which one? There's quite a few denominations but I've never heard any from any denom aligning with his kookiness apart from his own.

Fred Phelps is not representative of Christianity, and if he was I think I would have heard about him a decade before I did. Like I said, it's always the athiests who seem to cling to him and it was athiests who were clammouring to tell me about him.

If anyone is going to judge me by Fred Phelps then so be it. But that's like judging Muslims by 9/11 bombers. It's inane and so are the people who make those judgements.


you're still solidly missing the point. no one's aligning with phelps. but the lack of denoucement, coupled with some big wig's like the pope, rick warren, and james dobson using the same bible verses against those who are gay are equated with, i would hazard, a large number of people as being one and the same. it makes it LOOK LIKE the rest of those folks are as out of touch and effed up as phelps and co. and then summarily dismissed out of hand. ALL OF THEM.

feel free to go ahead and ignore this. i'm sure it might make you feel better than you think he's a nutbar, but why isn't 'your' (imperial your used here) church saying the same thing? tacit approval is still approval.

its a big ole reason why more and more people think that the church, and christianity, is irrelevant.

Yes, I agree with this.

I had a dilemma recently. On Facebook, I have tons of friends from real life, many of them are members of my uncle's church. (He is the pastor) Sidhe invited me to play Lesbian Vampire Wars and I was like, "Oh My God! What do I do?" I cared more about what Sidhe thought than what those church members thought, but I didn't want to make a problem for my uncle either.

Finally, I settled on becoming a supporter or a "fan" of a page that was to raise awareness of a young gay man who had been murdered for being gay and had still not received justice.

I felt like if I was going to step out in support of GLBT's, then, I wanted something less frivilous than Lesbian Vampire Wars.

Now, it took some soul searching and even asking for advice from people. Sidhe was ready to let me off the hook, but I couldn't let myself off the hook.

My point is sometimes people have to make a stand. It may be in some silly way or a more serious way. There will be risk involved and one may lose friends, but that is better than not doing anything at all or by sticking your head in the sand.

Not everyone is confrontational like that, and I get that, but if you are okay with going around saying, "Homosexuality is a sin", then, you damn well better get off your ass and say, "Fred Phelps is a fucktard and what he is doing is a big ole sin too!"

Why feel responsible to point out the sins of gay people but NOT CALL OUT A FALSE PROPHET?

In fact, there is NOTHING in Scripture that says we are supposed to point out sin in other people. THERE IS PLENTY IN SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS WE ARE SUPPOSED TO CALL OUT FALSE PROPHETS AND KICK THEM OUT OF OUR MIDST!

(Okay, rant over!)

Lisa

[Pendaric]

I don't think anyone is personally criticizing you Sally Anne. The criticism is aimed at the mainstream American Church organizations who presumably have failed to condemn Phelps, and the point being made is that without that official condemnation approval is tacitly given.

I'm incredulous if they haven't condemned him actually. I would have thought it would be a political no-brainer for him. Certainly in the UK, when there was the uproar about him potentially coming here, a number of churches gave official statements disowning him and his teachings. Surely the mainstream American churches must have done the same at some point?

[Lisa0315]

Imagine yourself in their shoes for a moment.


No need to imagine, I used to be in their shoes.



They do not know many Christians and the experiences they've had have been pretty negative. People are telling them they are going to hell.

Then I would advise them to listen to Charles Stanley, David Pawson and Joyce Meyer or any of the other umpteen ministers who don't preach "hell and brimstone"




That's politics, not the message of Jesus Christ which is what Christianity is supposed to represent. Charles Stanley is more of a mouthpiece for the Christian message than a President. Or are we now going to descend into the simplistic balck and white historical "religion is to blame for everthing" and not distinguish between politics and religion even when it's blatantly obvious?




The media is in the business of capitalising on everything that is negative. And?


Atheists cannot distinguish between religions much less what flavor Christians are.


That's absolute bunkum. I used to be an atheist, well actually, I was an agnostic. Trust me Lisa, atheists are really not as stupid and as unanalytical you are intent on portrarying them. They probably know more about religion and the different flavours of Christianity than most Christians.



They rate religions on who threatens them the most and who leaves them alone, and whose doctrine promises the worst end.

From an atheist perspective, can you see the harm that not rallying togehter against the likes of Phelps and Falwell?

Lisa


I've already stated my disagreement with them, I am against them, I don't regard them as brothers. I've even stated who I am aligned with, Stanley and Pawson and many others who are in NO-WAY comparable to Phelps & Clan.

So what else do you want me to do? Stone them? Crucify them? I don't agree with them so you trying to imply that Christians like myself sit silent and say nothing when I'm on an atheist forum speaking against them is pretty galling.

Well, this is turning into a bit of a pile-on. It used to be me getting that, LOL! (Not really) Anyway, you have been a good sport. Keep in mind that while these things are uber important, part of the Cafe's goal is to really go deeply into these things and it is very, very hard when it feels like it is you against the rest of the world.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I don't think anyone is personally criticizing you Sally Anne. The criticism is aimed at the mainstream American Church organizations who presumably have failed to condemn Phelps, and the point being made is that without that official condemnation approval is tacitly given.

I'm incredulous if they haven't condemned him actually. I would have thought it would be a political no-brainer for him. Certainly in the UK, when there was the uproar about him potentially coming here, a number of churches gave official statements disowning him and his teachings. Surely the mainstream American churches must have done the same at some point?

I don't know if they have or not. I am going to google it and find out.

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

I don't think anyone is personally criticizing you Sally Anne. The criticism is aimed at the mainstream American Church organizations who presumably have failed to condemn Phelps, and the point being made is that without that official condemnation approval is tacitly given.

I'm incredulous if they haven't condemned him actually. I would have thought it would be a political no-brainer for him. Certainly in the UK, when there was the uproar about him potentially coming here, a number of churches gave official statements disowning him and his teachings. Surely the mainstream American churches must have done the same at some point?




I would have thought so yeah, but I dunno how things work over there. They don't have an established church like we do in the UK so it's probably more difficult for any one of them to speak with authority as THE Christian Church which is representative of America. We do at least (as ineffectual as it may be) have a Church of England which can speak.

[SallyAnne]

Imagine yourself in their shoes for a moment.


No need to imagine, I used to be in their shoes.




Then I would advise them to listen to Charles Stanley, David Pawson and Joyce Meyer or any of the other umpteen ministers who don't preach "hell and brimstone"




That's politics, not the message of Jesus Christ which is what Christianity is supposed to represent. Charles Stanley is more of a mouthpiece for the Christian message than a President. Or are we now going to descend into the simplistic balck and white historical "religion is to blame for everthing" and not distinguish between politics and religion even when it's blatantly obvious?




The media is in the business of capitalising on everything that is negative. And?




That's absolute bunkum. I used to be an atheist, well actually, I was an agnostic. Trust me Lisa, atheists are really not as stupid and as unanalytical you are intent on portrarying them. They probably know more about religion and the different flavours of Christianity than most Christians.



They rate religions on who threatens them the most and who leaves them alone, and whose doctrine promises the worst end.

From an atheist perspective, can you see the harm that not rallying togehter against the likes of Phelps and Falwell?

Lisa


I've already stated my disagreement with them, I am against them, I don't regard them as brothers. I've even stated who I am aligned with, Stanley and Pawson and many others who are in NO-WAY comparable to Phelps & Clan.

So what else do you want me to do? Stone them? Crucify them? I don't agree with them so you trying to imply that Christians like myself sit silent and say nothing when I'm on an atheist forum speaking against them is pretty galling.

Well, this is turning into a bit of a pile-on. It used to be me getting that, LOL! (Not really) Anyway, you have been a good sport. Keep in mind that while these things are uber important, part of the Cafe's goal is to really go deeply into these things and it is very, very hard when it feels like it is you against the rest of the world.

Lisa



LOL! No probs, I don't feel against anyone, I'm actually AGREEING with everyone here about Phelps but the bone of contention seems to be with some frustration about mainstream American churches and how they're dealing with Christianity and not unified against Phelps.

I dunno why, I would have thought Atheists would have been delighted that that is that case and that they can throw darts at Phelps.:D

[Lisa0315]

The whole article is worth reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Apparantly, Fred Phelps thinks everyone is going to hell including Billy Graham, the RCC and Orthodox and pretty much everyone else.

Few protests have been made and as far as I can tell, none of them were by churches.

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

I felt like if I was going to step out in support of GLBT's, then, I wanted something less frivilous than Lesbian Vampire Wars.




"Lesbian Vampire Wars":evil:

flipping heck that's hilarious....:D:D

[miss djax]

you're still solidly missing the point. no one's aligning with phelps. but the lack of denoucement, coupled with some big wig's like the pope, rick warren, and james dobson using the same bible verses against those who are gay are equated with, i would hazard, a large number of people as being one and the same. it makes it LOOK LIKE the rest of those folks are as out of touch and effed up as phelps and co. and then summarily dismissed out of hand. ALL OF THEM.

feel free to go ahead and ignore this. i'm sure it might make you feel better than you think he's a nutbar, but why isn't 'your' (imperial your used here) church saying the same thing?


I am here as a representative of the "Church" and I have said something against him. What else do you want me to do? I'm not an American, I'm not in the American Church and I don't identify or align with Phelps. So what do you expect me to do?

Should I go around harrassing Muslims because of what the few extremists did in the name of Islam? Or should I use my own critical thinking and discern that the few loons don't represent the majority. Just as the majority of Christians I strongly suspect don't represent Phelps, unless you're trying to claim that they do?

It seems to me that you want the mainstream Christians like Warren and his ilk to not oppose the gay agenda or to stipulate that marriage is between a man and a woman. That has nothing to do with Phelps.

you're right, you're not the voice of the church in the us. i definitely wouldn't advise harrassing muslims either. ;)

i'm going to be out the rest of the nite so i won't be able to respond til tomorrow, most likely, so i'll just say this :

the ability of the modern christian church to stay relevant will hinge, in my opinion, on social issues.

that modern, powerful churches use the same passages from the bible as phelps, coupled with their tacit approval of the messages of phelps and co by virtue of not speaking out against them, will have impact felt far, far into the future.

[SallyAnne]

The whole article is worth reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Apparantly, Fred Phelps thinks everyone is going to hell including Billy Graham, the RCC and Orthodox and pretty much everyone else.

Few protests have been made and as far as I can tell, none of them were by churches.

Lisa



I dunno why anyone even wastes time talking about him like we are.:p

Billy Graham going to hell....hmm....so Fred Phelps is God now is he? I mean seriously, does anyone take that guy seriously over there? If they do, I feel sorry for you.

[SallyAnne]

the ability of the modern christian church to stay relevant will hinge, in my opinion, on social issues.



Yeah, that's where you and I will have to disgaree. The ability of the Church has ALWAYS and only ever hinged on the Gospel and power of Jesus Christ. His message is always relevant, it's not dependant on "social issues" of the day to be relevant, it speaks to them.

[David B]

[QUOTE=SallyAnne;23860]

the ability of the modern christian church to stay relevant will hinge, in my opinion, on social issues.



Yeah, that's where you and I will have to disgaree. The ability of the Church has ALWAYS and only ever hinged on the Gospel and power of Jesus Christ. His message is always relevant, it's not dependant on "social issues" of the day to be relevant, it speaks to them.

My bold.

Isn't that the sort of line that Phelps would take, to justify him sticking with his unpopular way of evangelising?

David

[SallyAnne]

that modern, powerful churches use the same passages from the bible as phelps, coupled with their tacit approval of the messages of phelps and co by virtue of not speaking out against them, will have impact felt far, far into the future.



I really don't understand why you give that guy so much power of importance. I think the work of other Christian ministers who are diligently sowing seed and reaping harvests, yes like Stanley and the majority are far more significant than the big mouth of one deluded Fred Phelps. But you seem to attach great influential importance to him and I find that baffling.:confused:

[SallyAnne]

[QUOTE=miss djax;23877]


Yeah, that's where you and I will have to disgaree. The ability of the Church has ALWAYS and only ever hinged on the Gospel and power of Jesus Christ. His message is always relevant, it's not dependant on "social issues" of the day to be relevant, it speaks to them.

My bold.

Isn't that the sort of line that Phelps would take, to justify him sticking with his unpopular way of evangelising?

David



I don't know what Phelps evangelising style is apart from "God hates" and that isn't exactly the Gospel message of Jesus Christ, so no, I don't think he's justified at all. He seems to believe he has the power to state who is personally going to hell and who isn't.

[SallyAnne]

i definitely wouldn't advise harrassing muslims either. ;)




heck no, they might put the fatwa on my butt like they did with Salmon Rushdie.:eek:

J/K!:p

[SallyAnne]

SallyAnne,

You're obviously responding to a lot of diffeent people so if you don't get to it, that's fine. But earlier I asked what, or how, atheists cherry pick. Could you clarify what you meant by that?


Sure, most of the atheists I have come across on forums seem to pick out all the scriptures which they believe portray God as a monster. Particularly stuff from the OT and they don't seem content to acknowlege God's grace but rather, focus on His judgements. They also like to pick stuff out of context, paste it together, and call it a contradiction.

[Hentenza]

I would have said that in the UK Phelps is at least as recognizable a name as any of the other Christian preachers, due to a documentary that Louis Theroux did on the Phelps family a couple of years ago, and due to the recent publicity they got when they threatened to come here and picket a couple of months ago.

Whilst I think they're batshit crazy and reprehensible in their actions, they do know their scripture and can give good biblical back up for their stance. Some of the bible does support what they are saying.

I can probably justify kidnapping my neighbor's kid using out of context scripture the way Phelps does. He and his cult does not have genuine scripture backing to justify his hate. It's just not there.

[SallyAnne]

There's plenty of NT stuff against gays as well. It might not be as PC as it once was for the Church to be openly anti-gay, but without doubt the bible, both OT and NT, condemns homosexuality.



I think I have to agree with you, Romans 1 does not exactly speak of it (or other things) in an accepting tone, so why do you think some Christians deem homosexuality as acceptable within Christianity?

[SallyAnne]

I would have said that in the UK Phelps is at least as recognizable a name as any of the other Christian preachers, due to a documentary that Louis Theroux did on the Phelps family a couple of years ago, and due to the recent publicity they got when they threatened to come here and picket a couple of months ago.

Whilst I think they're batshit crazy and reprehensible in their actions, they do know their scripture and can give good biblical back up for their stance. Some of the bible does support what they are saying.

I can probably justify kidnapping my neighbor's kid using out of context scripture the way Phelps does. He and his cult does not have genuine scripture backing to justify his hate. It's just not there.


I agree with you.

[Hentenza]

Oh, I did leave that out.

I can know that they have not simply rejected God's revelation the same way I can know who has received it, and Scripture supports this.

By testimony, those who bear witness of salvation by God, so those who have not testify that they have not, nor have they been called.

Do you think hearing is enough? The Jews heard the very voice of God and did not believe. Was it not enough to see miracles for them to believe? Was it purposeful rejection, Hen? No, Isaiah tells us that the Jews were purposefully blinded to their Messiah so that the Gentiles could be grafted in.

Why do you think Jesus says, Blessed are they which do not see or hear but believe? (paraphrased and not cited)

The emphasis there, Hen, is on Blessed! It is a gift. Those who hear and those who see cannot unless God blesses them with sight and hearing.

Did you ever wonder why the disciples were more successful in obtaining converts than Jesus was? There were 120 faithful by the end. Out of the thousands who followed him during his ministry, only 120 remained. They were not given the gift of belief.

What did the centurion pray except, Lord Help my Unbelief! Jesus answered that prayer. How could there be unbelief when one was standing right before the King of Kings except that belief is a gift, an answered prayer.

Why do we pray for the unsaved? Do we pray that we can get them under the sound of preaching, or that we may persuade them? No, we pray for intercession from Almighty God that their hearts might believe. We ask for God to GIVE THEM FAITH.

There are certainly those who are given the gift and reject it, but you spend the years I have talking to atheists and you are going to find out...They have nothing, not a single moment, not a single experience, nothing that says that they were called and they simply rejected the voice of God.

So, Hen, my evidence is the same as yours. My evidence is the testimony of all the atheists I have talked with who tell me that they have never believed, not for a second, not had a moment of doubt. Do you know how many have told me that they WISHED there was a God? Not all of them, certainly, but MANY of them.

Do you know how difficult it is to answer those who say they WISH IT? I have talked two of them in doing a chapter by chapter verse by verse study with me and having them pray if they could, if they would. They tried, not as a test, but they simply COULD NOT BELIEVE.

So, there HAS to be something more or our God is a monster who condemned most of his creation from the foundation of the earth.

So, of those 1.8 billion estimated atheists, how many were called Hen? How many truly rejected and how many simply never received the gift of faith? You cannot even stomach the possibility. You must insist that they HAD to consciously and purposefully reject Jesus Christ, but THEY DIDN'T. They didn't reject God no more than all of those thousand of followers of Christ. They simply did not receive the gift of belief.

Lisa

Lisa,

I can equally tell you of the many that have. Heck, we just have one do the altar call at our church yesterday. Praise God. The bible tells us that those that seek with all of their heart will find Him.

Matthew 7:7-12
7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! 12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

A problem that I have seen is that some seek but will only accept what pleases them or what edifies them. The Jews (general statement) did this. Their unbelief, even after first hand witness, was due to their own pride. I can cite many examples of this.

Many is not all. I have met half and half. Those who were once Christians and stopped believing, and they believed as fervantly as you and I do. Others who have never ever not even in childhood considered that Christianity might be true. A good example? JackRabbit, or you might know him as Faster_JackRabbit was raised in a fundie household, but didn't believe, never, not for a single moment. He has never been gifted with belief.

I had head knowledge of Jesus Christ from age 5 to age 37. I did not gain heart knowledge until just five years ago. I was not gifted with belief until then.

Lisa

Most of us have our testimonies Lisa. I was agnostic for over 17 years of my life. The point that I am trying to make is that all are called at one point or another. Some earlier some later. Some answer the call others ignore it or reject it.

[David B]

[QUOTE=SallyAnne;23883]

My bold.

Isn't that the sort of line that Phelps would take, to justify him sticking with his unpopular way of evangelising?

David



I don't know what Phelps evangelising style is apart from "God hates" and that isn't exactly the Gospel message of Jesus Christ, so no, I don't think he's justified at all. He seems to believe he has the power to state who is personally going to hell and who isn't.

My bold

Well there are similarities.

he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

I am come to send fire on the earth

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

David

[SallyAnne]

[QUOTE=David B;23889]



I don't know what Phelps evangelising style is apart from "God hates" and that isn't exactly the Gospel message of Jesus Christ, so no, I don't think he's justified at all. He seems to believe he has the power to state who is personally going to hell and who isn't.

My bold

Well there are similarities.









Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

David



Yeah, and this is exactly what I meant about atheists "cherry picking."

I don't think any of the scriptures you've posted justify Phelps preaching and they're not the Gospel in its entirety which you've conveniently chosen to omit. This is what I meant about atheists giving him more credence than we do. You cherry pick all the scriptures out of context, lump them together so they're presented one-sided, and then hey presto you believe Fred Phelps is credible.

Hello? I've never seen a Christian do that so I contend that it is atheists who justify and agree with Phelps, not Christians.

[Lisa0315]

[quote=SallyAnne;23803]

There's plenty of NT stuff against gays as well. It might not be as PC as it once was for the Church to be openly anti-gay, but without doubt the bible, both OT and NT, condemns homosexuality.



I think it does too, so why do you think some Christians deem homosexuality as Christian?

Here is my thoughts on this subject, and it is not an easy one.

Yes, Scripture condemns sexual sin. It specifies things like homosexuality, incest, adultery, fornification, and beastiality. My problem with our church is that there is a whole lot of finger-pointing without first cleaning up the sin within our own.

When divorce is 50% in Christian marriages, then, we might have a leg to stand on. When children are not being molested, we might have something to talk about. When adultery and pre-marital sex is at zero percent in our churches, then, maybe it is time to look around us.

However, what I am completely unwilling to do is deny the rights of millions of people. I am unwilling to deny folks access to each other in the hospital, to their children that they have shared, or in a financial way.

Church and State, in the UK, might have some cross-functionality, I don't know. Over here though, it doesn't or shouldn't. I have no right to deny a civil right to someone because I have a belief. We do not live under the law. We do not have a rockpile, and more so, the Bible is supposed to be a mirror, not a magnifying glass.

I will say this: I have attraction towards women. I think it would be a sin for *me* to act upon that attraction. It is not my call to decide if it is a sin for others.

Do you know what convinced me of this? After arguing in the DoH at CF for years, I talked to a young man via PM who told me about being gay, fighting it, trying to be a Christian, falling, repenting, and finally attempted suicide from self-hatred. He says that he had a dream while he was unconscious in which Jesus told him directly that He loved him, and that there was no condemnation on him. So, this guy stopped trying to NOT be gay, joined a church that was made up of mostly gay people (cuz it was not cool at that time) and ministered to many people who were struggling with their sexuality.

He is at peace now. I can only go by his testimony, and I simply cannot be convinced that there is no such thing as a gay Christian. To me, that saying is the height of arrogance.

There is way too much emphasis put on the Pauline epistles, and not enough on what Jesus said. Jesus NEVER called out deh gheys. He did call out adulterers and fornicators though. I am not saying Paul is wrong, but he was speaking to cultures who were having orgies all the time too. Orgies dedicated to false gods, even.

I mean, if we ladies are not keeping our mouths shut, and covering our hair, then, how do we know which pieces were cultural and which pieces were supposed to be taken for all time?

Ultimately, I think instead of protesting gay marriage, we need to concentrate on cleaning ourselves up. The Church is in bad shape.

I hear people say, "Someone got saved today!", and it has been months since it happened. When I was growing up, there were tens of people that got saved every service.

The problem is not the world half as much as it is internal.

When a group of Christians go along with the idea that an opportunity to kick out hundreds of atheists from a forum is what God wants, then, you have a problem. Christian Forums was the only church that most of these guys will ever attend. How many pastors would like to have hundreds of non-believers show up some Sunday? Isn't that what we are supposed to want? Aren't we supposed to want to get them under the sound of the gospel?

It is not just on the internet though. Gays are shunned by the church. Pretty much everyone who does not meet certain expectations are shunned. Why are Christians so afraid of being tainted by non-Christians? Why are they crossing to the other side of the street? Why are they standing before piles of rocks ready to toss one at the first sinner they see?

I love God. I do not like his Bride so much. I think She is in that flighty stage spoken of in Song of Solomon. Soon, she will be wishing for her bridegroom and He will not be found until she uses all her resources to find Him again. I pray that day comes soon. I pray that day waits. Either way, there are going to be needed a lot of changes before She is ready.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Lisa,

I can equally tell you of the many that have. Heck, we just have one do the altar call at our church yesterday. Praise God. The bible tells us that those that seek with all of their heart will find Him.

Matthew 7:7-12
7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! 12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

A problem that I have seen is that some seek but will only accept what pleases them or what edifies them. The Jews (general statement) did this. Their unbelief, even after first hand witness, was due to their own pride. I can cite many examples of this.

Many is not all. I have met half and half. Those who were once Christians and stopped believing, and they believed as fervantly as you and I do. Others who have never ever not even in childhood considered that Christianity might be true. A good example? JackRabbit, or you might know him as Faster_JackRabbit was raised in a fundie household, but didn't believe, never, not for a single moment. He has never been gifted with belief.

I had head knowledge of Jesus Christ from age 5 to age 37. I did not gain heart knowledge until just five years ago. I was not gifted with belief until then.

Lisa

Most of us have our testimonies Lisa. I was agnostic for over 17 years of my life. The point that I am trying to make is that all are called at one point or another. Some earlier some later. Some answer the call others ignore it or reject it.

Are you SURE about that? I think you are going to find that 50% of the atheists here have never been called.

Lisa

[TySixtus]

SallyAnne,

You're obviously responding to a lot of diffeent people so if you don't get to it, that's fine. But earlier I asked what, or how, atheists cherry pick. Could you clarify what you meant by that?


Sure, most of the atheists I have come across on forums seem to pick out all the scriptures which they believe portray God as a monster. Particularly stuff from the OT and they don't seem content to acknowlege God's grace but rather, focus on His judgements. They also like to pick stuff out of context, paste it together, and call it a contradiction.

Well a few things here.

First of all, that's not really cherry picking. Because to me -- speaking as an atheist who finds the biblical god a reprehensible creature -- his "grace" is really irrelevant to matter at hand. Even you admit that there is stuff in the OT that is pretty nasty. It seems your claim is that the stuff in the NT mitigates it, or puts it in the proper context. I maintain that you cannot mitigate any of it, and the "context" argument doesn't hold water. I will explain.

If you were to come upon me, and I was busy beating my daughter's back to a bloody pulp, which required her hospitalization, and you saw fit to judge me for that action, would the "context" matter? Could there be anything I could say or write after that to justify my actions? Or before that, even? Is there anything ever that could justify me beating my child into the hospital? Of course not. And what God does to people in the OT is worse than beating a child and putting them into the hospital, because he outright kills them, or demands that they be killed. Usually in a horrific way.

So why should we acknowledge God's "grace"? He acts like a bastard. Just because he does nice things doesn't mean he hasn't (according to the very same book) done horrific and disgusting things. So what does "context" mean here? Where is the "context" for killing all the first born of Egypt? What crucial piece am I missing that will suddenly make that act no longer immoral?

[SallyAnne]

[quote=Pendaric;23850]



I think it does too, so why do you think some Christians deem homosexuality as Christian?

Here is my thoughts on this subject, and it is not an easy one.

Yes, Scripture condemns sexual sin. It specifies things like homosexuality, incest, adultery, fornification, and beastiality. My problem with our church is that there is a whole lot of finger-pointing without first cleaning up the sin within our own.

When divorce is 50% in Christian marriages, then, we might have a leg to stand on. When children are not being molested, we might have something to talk about. When adultery and pre-marital sex is at zero percent in our churches, then, maybe it is time to look around us.

However, what I am completely unwilling to do is deny the rights of millions of people. I am unwilling to deny folks access to each other in the hospital, to their children that they have shared, or in a financial way.

Church and State, in the UK, might have some cross-functionality, I don't know. Over here though, it doesn't or shouldn't. I have no right to deny a civil right to someone because I have a belief. We do not live under the law. We do not have a rockpile, and more so, the Bible is supposed to be a mirror, not a magnifying glass.

I will say this: I have attraction towards women. I think it would be a sin for *me* to act upon that attraction. It is not my call to decide if it is a sin for others.

Do you know what convinced me of this? After arguing in the DoH at CF for years, I talked to a young man via PM who told me about being gay, fighting it, trying to be a Christian, falling, repenting, and finally attempted suicide from self-hatred. He says that he had a dream while he was unconscious in which Jesus told him directly that He loved him, and that there was no condemnation on him. So, this guy stopped trying to NOT be gay, joined a church that was made up of mostly gay people (cuz it was not cool at that time) and ministered to many people who were struggling with their sexuality.

He is at peace now. I can only go by his testimony, and I simply cannot be convinced that there is no such thing as a gay Christian. To me, that saying is the height of arrogance.

There is way too much emphasis put on the Pauline epistles, and not enough on what Jesus said. Jesus NEVER called out deh gheys. He did call out adulterers and fornicators though. I am not saying Paul is wrong, but he was speaking to cultures who were having orgies all the time too. Orgies dedicated to false gods, even.

I mean, if we ladies are not keeping our mouths shut, and covering our hair, then, how do we know which pieces were cultural and which pieces were supposed to be taken for all time?

Ultimately, I think instead of protesting gay marriage, we need to concentrate on cleaning ourselves up. The Church is in bad shape.

I hear people say, "Someone got saved today!", and it has been months since it happened. When I was growing up, there were tens of people that got saved every service.

The problem is not the world half as much as it is internal.

When a group of Christians go along with the idea that an opportunity to kick out hundreds of atheists from a forum is what God wants, then, you have a problem. Christian Forums was the only church that most of these guys will ever attend. How many pastors would like to have hundreds of non-believers show up some Sunday? Isn't that what we are supposed to want? Aren't we supposed to want to get them under the sound of the gospel?

It is not just on the internet though. Gays are shunned by the church. Pretty much everyone who does not meet certain expectations are shunned. Why are Christians so afraid of being tainted by non-Christians? Why are they crossing to the other side of the street? Why are they standing before piles of rocks ready to toss one at the first sinner they see?

I love God. I do not like his Bride so much. I think She is in that flighty stage spoken of in Song of Solomon. Soon, she will be wishing for her bridegroom and He will not be found until she uses all her resources to find Him again. I pray that day comes soon. I pray that day waits. Either way, there are going to be needed a lot of changes before She is ready.

Lisa


But Lisa, no-one in the Church is saying that being adulterers and fornicators is "ok" in the eyes of God. But that's exactly what is happening with the issue of homosexulaity within the modern church. It's not being regarded as a sin, it's being accepted because Christians like you are not making the stand when it comes to homosexuality WITHIN the Church.

Now, don't get me wrong, I can now see this is a sensitive issue for you because you have revealed that you are attracted to women. Ok. Thanks for your honesty. I am straight and as one who is attracted to men, I need to careful because I could be tempted to commit adultery. I don't regard myself as a mega-Christian, I'm just a sinner same as the next person but because I am a Christian and love Christ I can't allow that sexual temptation to take me over just as you have said you can't act upon your lesbian tendancy. Ok, we have that in common.

Where we have a difference is that I don't believe adultery is ok, I can't be a compulsive adulterer and claim to be a Christian at the same time. But the message of proponents of homosexulity is that they can be and are openly homosexual and Christian.

Now, it is not for me to say who is and who isn't of Christ, but you can bet your bottom dollar that I wouldn't allow ANY Christian to preach to me that it's "ok" to be a habitual adulterer! But there are proponents of homosexuality WITHIN the Church who are preaching exactly that about gay relations!

As for those outside the Church? That is the world and Paul said to leave that to God.

[sidhe]

Yes, I agree with this.

I had a dilemma recently. On Facebook, I have tons of friends from real life, many of them are members of my uncle's church. (He is the pastor) Sidhe invited me to play Lesbian Vampire Wars and I was like, "Oh My God! What do I do?" I cared more about what Sidhe thought than what those church members thought, but I didn't want to make a problem for my uncle either.

Ultimately, "Lesbian Vampire Wars" has joined the ranks of apps I'm subscribed to yet never ever use, because it totally fucking sucked.

Finally, I settled on becoming a supporter or a "fan" of a page that was to raise awareness of a young gay man who had been murdered for being gay and had still not received justice.

^This was good. :)

I felt like if I was going to step out in support of GLBT's, then, I wanted something less frivilous than Lesbian Vampire Wars.

...I'd like to point out that joining anything with the word "gay" or "lesbian" in it would be less frivolous than Lesbian Vampire Wars. :p

Now, it took some soul searching and even asking for advice from people. Sidhe was ready to let me off the hook, but I couldn't let myself off the hook.

I only let you off the hook because it impeded your ability to escape Sock Puppet, and thus wear your Samurai Girl outfit. :D

[Hentenza]

Many is not all. I have met half and half. Those who were once Christians and stopped believing, and they believed as fervantly as you and I do. Others who have never ever not even in childhood considered that Christianity might be true. A good example? JackRabbit, or you might know him as Faster_JackRabbit was raised in a fundie household, but didn't believe, never, not for a single moment. He has never been gifted with belief.

I had head knowledge of Jesus Christ from age 5 to age 37. I did not gain heart knowledge until just five years ago. I was not gifted with belief until then.

Lisa

Most of us have our testimonies Lisa. I was agnostic for over 17 years of my life. The point that I am trying to make is that all are called at one point or another. Some earlier some later. Some answer the call others ignore it or reject it.

Are you SURE about that? I think you are going to find that 50% of the atheists here have never been called.

Lisa

LOL!!! They are not dead yet.;)

[SallyAnne]

SallyAnne,

You're obviously responding to a lot of diffeent people so if you don't get to it, that's fine. But earlier I asked what, or how, atheists cherry pick. Could you clarify what you meant by that?


Sure, most of the atheists I have come across on forums seem to pick out all the scriptures which they believe portray God as a monster. Particularly stuff from the OT and they don't seem content to acknowlege God's grace but rather, focus on His judgements. They also like to pick stuff out of context, paste it together, and call it a contradiction.

Well a few things here.

First of all, that's not really cherry picking. Because to me -- speaking as an atheist who finds the biblical god a reprehensible creature -- his "grace" is really irrelevant to matter at hand. Even you admit that there is stuff in the OT that is pretty nasty. It seems your claim is that the stuff in the NT mitigates it, or puts it in the proper context. I maintain that you cannot mitigate any of it, and the "context" argument doesn't hold water. I will explain.

If you were to come upon me, and I was busy beating my daughter's back to a bloody pulp, which required her hospitalization, and you saw fit to judge me for that action, would the "context" matter? Could there be anything I could say or write after that to justify my actions? Or before that, even? Is there anything ever that could justify me beating my child into the hospital? Of course not. And what God does to people in the OT is worse than beating a child and putting them into the hospital, because he outright kills them, or demands that they be killed. Usually in a horrific way.

So why should we acknowledge God's "grace"? He acts like a bastard. Just because he does nice things doesn't mean he hasn't (according to the very same book) done horrific and disgusting things. So what does "context" mean here? Where is the "context" for killing all the first born of Egypt? What crucial piece am I missing that will suddenly make that act no longer immoral?



Why are you asking me? You've clearly made your mind up. But I would like to know what verses you would refer to in the NT where Jesus "acts like a bastard."

[TySixtus]

Well I asked you because you claimed we cherry picked. I'm pointing out that we're not really cherry picking. Feel free to disagree.

But also, why are you talking Jesus? You asked about God. So we're talking about God.

[SallyAnne]

We are all responsible for each other Hen. That we allow Steve to do the things he did, supported him, laugh about it in the cozy clubs at CF and rule in his favor more often than not...That is indeed our responsibility.



Blimey! :eek: Which "cozy clubs" are at CF? I'm often in hot water over there...I don't think it's pro-Christian at CF...at least it hasn't been for me, I've been pulled up a few times over there....:o

[SallyAnne]

Well I asked you because you claimed we cherry picked.


Because you DO cherry pick. Everything you stated in that post was a cherry pick. So yeah, I do disagree with you.

[SallyAnne]

But also, why are you talking Jesus? You asked about God. So we're talking about God.


To a Christian, Jesus is God. So please refer to the verses in the NT where you claim He "acts like a bastard."

[SallyAnne]

So what does "context" mean here? Where is the "context" for killing all the first born of Egypt?


Well, if you'd read the "context" you'd already know and wouldn't have to ask me.:p

Maybe you can tell me what the context was for Pharoah killing all the first born of the Hebrews?

[TySixtus]

Well I asked you because you claimed we cherry picked.


Because you DO cherry pick. Everything you stated in that post was a cherry pick. So yeah, I do disagree with you.

What? How did I "state" a cherry pick? I showed you my line of reasoning. The last thing I wrote about was the slaughter of the First Born. And how is that a cherry pick? I asked you for the context that would make the scenario moral.

And you asking for evidence of Jesus "not being a bastard" is to miss the exact point I was making. It doesn't matter if Jesus is a nice guy or not. That's not the point. None of that mitigates the nasty stuff God did in the OT.

[TySixtus]

So what does "context" mean here? Where is the "context" for killing all the first born of Egypt?


Well, if you'd read the "context" you'd already know and wouldn't have to ask me.:p

Maybe you can tell me what the context was for Pharoah killing all the first born of the Hebrews?

Explain it to me.

[SallyAnne]

So what does "context" mean here? Where is the "context" for killing all the first born of Egypt?


Well, if you'd read the "context" you'd already know and wouldn't have to ask me.:p

Maybe you can tell me what the context was for Pharoah killing all the first born of the Hebrews?

Explain it to me.

Read it yourself. Exodus 1.

[SallyAnne]

Well I asked you because you claimed we cherry picked.


Because you DO cherry pick. Everything you stated in that post was a cherry pick. So yeah, I do disagree with you.

What? How did I "state" a cherry pick? I showed you my line of reasoning.


Right, and your line of "reasoning" is a one-sided cherry pick.

[Jobar]

Ultimately, I think instead of protesting gay marriage, we need to concentrate on cleaning ourselves up. The Church is in bad shape.

This attitude is, I think, an acceptable expression of 'external' belief. You only are saying that your fellow believers need to practice what they preach, and claim to believe.

But you'll always have the problem of deciding exactly what "cleaning ourselves up" involves. You defend the faith of a gay Christian, and IMO that's admirable. But there will be many- and I'm not just talking about the hate-filled ones like Phelps- who see your tolerance as something that needs 'cleaning up'.

I hear people say, "Someone got saved today!", and it has been months since it happened. When I was growing up, there were tens of people that got saved every service.

The problem is not the world half as much as it is internal.

When a group of Christians go along with the idea that an opportunity to kick out hundreds of atheists from a forum is what God wants, then, you have a problem. Christian Forums was the only church that most of these guys will ever attend. How many pastors would like to have hundreds of non-believers show up some Sunday? Isn't that what we are supposed to want? Aren't we supposed to want to get them under the sound of the gospel?

It is not just on the internet though. Gays are shunned by the church. Pretty much everyone who does not meet certain expectations are shunned. Why are Christians so afraid of being tainted by non-Christians? Why are they crossing to the other side of the street? Why are they standing before piles of rocks ready to toss one at the first sinner they see?

In fairness, Lisa, having hundreds of unbelievers come to a church is not at all like having hundreds of unbelievers come to a forum for believers on the internet. On the net we can preach back, and usually do; if even a single atheist goes to a church and stands up in the middle of the service and starts arguing against the preacher's sermon, he would get evicted pretty-damn-quick. (In fact, there was an atheist who posted to II some years back that actually did this! He was escorted gently but *very* firmly to the church door, and was told not to return or face trespassing charges.)

I suspect any priest or pastor who found out that his service was going to be attended by hundreds of atheists would freak right out, and call in the police instantly!

When I was a regular at Internet Infidels, I kept current the list of Internet Infidels deconverts (http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?t=172452)- those who had come to II as believers of some sort, and left their religion as a result of the arguments they met there (at least partly). As part of that list, I also noted any unbelievers who became believers; in all the many years I posted on that board, there were only 3 who did that, compared to dozens who openly deconverted.

When believers and unbelievers are allowed to argue on a level playing field, the unbelievers win most of the time.

Lanakila (one of those deconverts, and a longtime regular at CF, as you know) has told me that, even with the rules heavily weighted against the atheists, the same thing happened on that board! There were many more de-conversions there, than conversions. (I'll look up that thread and post a link here later.)

(added- http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?p=3609143#post3609143.)

In short, Christians who open their hearts and minds to those who disagree with them often tend to lose their Christianity. What this says about your faith should be plain for anyone to see.

[SallyAnne]

And you asking for evidence of Jesus "not being a bastard" is to miss the exact point I was making. It doesn't matter if Jesus is a nice guy or not. That's not the point. None of that mitigates the nasty stuff God did in the OT.


I haven't missed the point at all. I am a Christian, Jesus Christ is my God, so if you can't point to anything in the NT which shows that "He acts like a bastard" then you're not referring to my God.

[TySixtus]

So when I point you to stuff in the OT, that doesn't count? That wasn't God?

[TySixtus]

Because you DO cherry pick. Everything you stated in that post was a cherry pick. So yeah, I do disagree with you.

What? How did I "state" a cherry pick? I showed you my line of reasoning.


Right, and your line of "reasoning" is a one-sided cherry pick.

Explain how this is so.

[SallyAnne]

[QUOTE=Lisa]

In short, Christians who open their hearts and minds to those who disagree with them often tend to lose their Christianity. What this says about your faith should be plain for anyone to see.


That's weird, because most of my Christian life has been spent amongst atheists and it has made my faith stronger.

[SallyAnne]

So when I point you to stuff in the OT, that doesn't count? That wasn't God?

Yes it was God, and God is also in the NT.

[SallyAnne]

What? How did I "state" a cherry pick? I showed you my line of reasoning.


Right, and your line of "reasoning" is a one-sided cherry pick.

Explain how this is so.


why should I need to? You already declared that you're not interested in God's grace so you've cherry picked what you want to believe about Him which doesn't include everything about Him. IOW, the classic Cherry Pick.

[TySixtus]

So then my assertion still stands -- God did nasty and horrific things in the OT. You claim I am being "one sided" by not looking at the good stuff he supposedly does also. But my argument doesn't care about the good stuff he supposedly does, because it doesn't absolve him of the bad stuff you admit he did.

You then claim that there is a "context" I'm missing here. I asked you what that was and you said "Exodus 1". But that's not really an answer. Because nothing that happened in Exodus 1 justifies the killing of babies in their cribs.

So.

Either I'm missing some crucial part of the context here, or you're not fessing up to the nature of your god as he exists in the OT.

[TySixtus]

Cherry Pick.

I don't think you're using this properly. I've started a thread (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=1304) so we don't derail this one, please feel free to contribute.

But I will say that you can't just accuse someone of "Cherry picking" because they happen to disagree with you. As far as I'm concerned, Cherry picking the Bible involves picking out one precept or verse while ignoring another.

[SallyAnne]

So then my assertion still stands -- God did nasty and horrific things in the OT.



In your opinion based on your out of context conclusions. There were reasons why God acted in the OT, they were Judgements.

But you're trying to claim that God is a "big baddie" for acting against evil. Even our own judicial systems don't work that way. There is a law and if you break it, you are held accountable under it. The way God dealt with Egypt wasn't because He was dealing with a benevolent Pharoah who was picking daisies and making delightful cups of tea which is what the majority "god hating" atheists would try and have us believe.

[SallyAnne]

Either I'm missing some crucial part of the context here, or you're not fessing up to the nature of your god as he exists in the OT.


huh? He exists in the OT as He exists in the NT, just the Covenant is different.

[TySixtus]

So then my assertion still stands -- God did nasty and horrific things in the OT.



In your opinion based on your out of context conclusions. There were reasons why God acted in the OT, they were Judgements.

What does this mean? How is "Judgments" a reason?

But you're trying to claim that God is a "big baddie" for not acting against evil.

I haven't made this argument.

Even our own judicial systems don't work that way. There is a law and if you break it, you are held accountable under it.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. God murdered babies. On what planet would this "law" ever be just?

The way God dealt with Egypt wasn't because He was dealing with a benevolent Pharoah who was picking daisies and making delightful cups of tea

I guess being the creator of the universe he had no other choice but to kill babies? He couldn't have whisked the Israelites away from captivity? Put all the Egyptians to sleep? I mean, he had to resort to infanticide?

which is what the majority "god hating" atheists would try and have us believe.

Well that didn't take long.

[SallyAnne]

So then my assertion still stands -- God did nasty and horrific things in the OT. You claim I am being "one sided" by not looking at the good stuff he supposedly does also. But my argument doesn't care about the good stuff


That's why your argument has no legs because you're not interested in "WHY" He did what He did. I'm not saying you're cherry picking because you not looking at the good stuff. Only that you're not interested in understaning why things were and are the way the are. Jesus Christ is very much the fulfilment of the OT prophets and Law. So if you can't refer me to the verses in the NT where "He acts like a bastard" then you really don't understand that God of the OT.

[Brother Daniel]

why should I need to?
Because this is a discussion board.
You already declared that you're not interested in God's grace
That is just a smokescreen. Accusing your interlocutor being "not interested" (in whatever), as an excuse to avoid answering a question, is not the way to have a civilized discussion. It's bloody rude, actually.
so you've cherry picked what you want to believe about Him which doesn't include everything about Him.
This is inaccurate. Again, you're just making excuses, and trying to blame Ty.
IOW, the classic Cherry Pick.
As Ty has said, you're not using that term right.

[Brother Daniel]

That's why your argument has no legs because you're not interested in "WHY" He did what He did.
Ty's very much interested in WHY, according to YOU, he did what he (allegedly) did. Again, you're just making excuses, and being very rude about it.
Only that you're not interested in understaning why things were and are the way the are.
More of the same.
So if you can't refer me to the verses in the NT where "He acts like a bastard" then you really don't understand that God of the OT.
Absolute rubbish. The proper interpretation of one document cannot possibly be dependent on a different document, written much later by different people.

[SallyAnne]

You already declared that you're not interested in God's grace
This is just a smokescreen.


No it isn't. When someone claims they're not cherry picking whilst proclaiming they're not interested in the WHOLE STORY, then it kind of defeats the object of then asking the other person to explain something,

Explain what? Ty's already made his or her mind up.

[SallyAnne]

so you've cherry picked what you want to believe about Him which doesn't include everything about Him.
This is inaccurate. Again, you're just making excuses, and trying to blame Ty.



Ty made the accusation that Christians cherry pick. When I said that atheists do the same he produced a cherry picked list that excluded God's Grace, which is the foundation of the NT.

So no, there is no blame game, just an honest assessment that an atheist is just as cherry picking as any Christian. They cherry pick all the bits they don't like about God and ignore the Jesus Christ of the NT. But worse than that, they think that exonerates them from being a cherry picker.

Whatever.:rolleyes:

[TySixtus]

Sally,

Referring to my earlier argument: Let us say that you came upon me beating my daughter until she bled and had to be hospitalized. What, if anything, could I say or do to mitigate the fact that I had just beaten her straight into the hospital? Is there any act or paragraph in the human language that could make my actions anything other than reprehensible?

You keep saying I'm not looking at the NT. I'm telling you I have looked at the NT and it doesn't matter, because nothing in the NT makes the nasty shit that went down in the OT any less nasty.

[Brother Daniel]

No it isn't. When someone claims they're not cherry picking whilst proclaiming they're not interested in the WHOLE STORY,
Ty has explained, patiently and in detail, why the "whole story" has no bearing on the claims he has made so far. You could try to rebut his argument.
then it kind of defeats the object of then asking the other person to explain something,
Excuses.
Ty's already made his or her mind up.
Check out Matthew 7:5. Meditate on it. For your own sake.

[SallyAnne]

So if you can't refer me to the verses in the NT where "He acts like a bastard" then you really don't understand that God of the OT.
Absolute rubbish. The proper interpretation of one document cannot possibly be dependent on a different document, written much later by different people.



Sorry, but that's EXACTLY what the Bible is. The OT is the foundation of the NT and the NT is the fulfilment of the OT. That's why Jesus stated that He is the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets, the Alpha and the Omega.

It's a message which starts in Genesis and ends in Revelation.

[Brother Daniel]

So no, there is no blame game, just an honest assessment that an atheist is just as cherry picking as any Christian.
You still don't understand what cherry picking is, then.
Whatever.:rolleyes:
Indeed.

[SallyAnne]

No it isn't. When someone claims they're not cherry picking whilst proclaiming they're not interested in the WHOLE STORY,
Ty has explained, patiently and in detail, why the "whole story" has no bearing on the claims he has made so far. You could try to rebut his argument.
then it kind of defeats the object of then asking the other person to explain something,
Excuses.
Ty's already made his or her mind up.
Check out Matthew 7:5. Meditate on it. For your own sake.



I really do think that Ty is capable of speaking for him or herself and doesn't need you to chime in.

[Brother Daniel]

Sorry, but that's EXACTLY what the Bible is.
Saying it forcefully doesn't make it so. You're free to try to give these claims some support, if you want to, of course.

[SallyAnne]

No it isn't. When someone claims they're not cherry picking whilst proclaiming they're not interested in the WHOLE STORY,
Ty has explained, patiently and in detail, why the "whole story" has no bearing on the claims he has made so far. You could try to rebut his argument.



What's to rebut when someone only presents half the argument and refuses to take into account the other half?

[SallyAnne]

Sorry, but that's EXACTLY what the Bible is.
Saying it forcefully doesn't make it so. You're free to try to give these claims some support, if you want to, of course.


Well maybe you should go back and read my whole post instead of snipping it.

[Brother Daniel]

I really do think that Ty is capable of speaking for him or herself and doesn't need you to chime in.
That's true.

I wouldn't have chimed in if you hadn't been so rude, though.

"Nyah nyah I won't explain because you're not really interested." Nasty and childish.

[Brother Daniel]

What's to rebut when someone only presents half the argument and refuses to take into account the other half?
Maybe you should go back and read his argument.

[Brother Daniel]

Well maybe you should go back and read my whole post instead of snipping it.
It was just more assertions. No support.

[SallyAnne]

Sally,

Referring to my earlier argument: Let us say that you came upon me beating my daughter until she bled and had to be hospitalized. What, if anything, could I say or do to mitigate the fact that I had just beaten her straight into the hospital? Is there any act or paragraph in the human language that could make my actions anything other than reprehensible?

You keep saying I'm not looking at the NT. I'm telling you I have looked at the NT and it doesn't matter, because nothing in the NT makes the nasty shit that went down in the OT any less nasty.



I'm saying you're not looking at WHY God acted in the OT. When people sinned and went to lengths of depravity, they were judged. Even His own people were judged, He didn't play favourites.

But you're just trying to portray God as an unthinking cruel tyrant. That's not true, He acted against sin and evil and that was punishable physically. Even today we don't let lawbreakers loose on the streets, if you break the law you are held accountable under it but you're trying to hobble God from judging His own creation?

[SallyAnne]

Well maybe you should go back and read my whole post instead of snipping it.
It was just more assertions. No support.


Not assertions, Facts.

[SallyAnne]

ta ta for now. I have to go and do some work...been here too long. :)

[RBH]

You keep saying I'm not looking at the NT. I'm telling you I have looked at the NT and it doesn't matter, because nothing in the NT makes the nasty shit that went down in the OT any less nasty.That's the basis for the so-called Marcionian heresy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism), which was a strand of early Christianity in the first half of the second century C.E., around 150-ish C.E. Basically, Marcion looked at the O.T. God and at the N.T. God, and said "C'mon folks, these are obviously different Gods." I find that a more defensible position than the attempt to figure out how the same God can do all the stuff claimed in the two testaments and be even marginally consistent.

[LoneWolf]

Sally,

Referring to my earlier argument: Let us say that you came upon me beating my daughter until she bled and had to be hospitalized. What, if anything, could I say or do to mitigate the fact that I had just beaten her straight into the hospital? Is there any act or paragraph in the human language that could make my actions anything other than reprehensible?

You keep saying I'm not looking at the NT. I'm telling you I have looked at the NT and it doesn't matter, because nothing in the NT makes the nasty shit that went down in the OT any less nasty.

I like this way of describing it. Even if I did believe in the God of the Bible he would not be deserving of my worship. The God of the OT is a monster. And God is unchanging, right?

[TySixtus]

If brutally murder a person, it doesn't matter if I save a busload of retarded children from a sea-dragon. I'm still a brutal murderer.

[SallyAnne]

Sally,

Referring to my earlier argument: Let us say that you came upon me beating my daughter until she bled and had to be hospitalized. What, if anything, could I say or do to mitigate the fact that I had just beaten her straight into the hospital? Is there any act or paragraph in the human language that could make my actions anything other than reprehensible?

You keep saying I'm not looking at the NT. I'm telling you I have looked at the NT and it doesn't matter, because nothing in the NT makes the nasty shit that went down in the OT any less nasty.

I like this way of describing it. Even if I did believe in the God of the Bible he would not be deserving of my worship. The God of the OT is a monster. And God is unchanging, right?


According to Atheists who like to stop at the OT and completely ignore the NT and Jesus Christ, I guess that's what you believe, yeah.

[SallyAnne]

If brutally murder a person, it doesn't matter if I save a busload of retarded children from a sea-dragon. I'm still a brutal murderer.

Are you American?

[TySixtus]

If brutally murder a person, it doesn't matter if I save a busload of retarded children from a sea-dragon. I'm still a brutal murderer.

Are you American?

Yes. What does that have to do with anything?

According to Atheists who like to stop at the OT and completely ignore the NT and Jesus Christ, I guess that's what you believe, yeah
What part of "The NT doesn't change what happened in the OT" do you not get? I can't make any more analogies.

[SallyAnne]

If brutally murder a person, it doesn't matter if I save a busload of retarded children from a sea-dragon. I'm still a brutal murderer.

Are you American?

Yes. What does that have to do with anything?



Not much. I was just curious because your government puts people to death for crimes. Does that make your judicial system a brutal murderer?

[SallyAnne]

According to Atheists who like to stop at the OT and completely ignore the NT and Jesus Christ, I guess that's what you believe, yeah
What part of "The NT doesn't change what happened in the OT" do you not get? I can't make any more analogies.



Sorry, but not taking the NT into account doesn't make your argument strong with a Christian. We believe because of the NT, it changes everything and the OT is understood in context of the NT.

If you really have such a beef with the OT then your argument is with Orthodox Jews. Do you spend time on Jewish sites lambasting Judaism about the OT? Or do you just oppose Christians about it whilst ignoring Jesus Christ of the NT?

[TySixtus]

Not much. I was just curious because your government puts people to death for crimes. Does that make your judicial system a brutal murderer?

Haha well that question is bit of a mess.

I disagree with the death penalty. But a "system" can't be a murderer. The state, as an entity, is murdering people, yes. And it's despicable. I find it horrific that we still kill people for crimes in this day and age.

So yes, the state engages in murders.

But then comparing god to a government entity will not help any of your arguments at all. I would advise you to not travel that path.

[SallyAnne]

Haha well that question is a mess.

I disagree with the death penalty. But a "system" can't be a murderer. The state, as an entity, is murdering people, yes. And it's despicable. I find it horrific that we still kill people for crimes in this day and age.

So yes, the state engages in murders.

But then comparing god to a government entity will not help any of your arguments at all. I would advise you to not travel that path.

What path? In the OT, God makes judgements according to Law. Sin is disobedience of His Law, just as under our civic laws we will be punished and potentially put to death (in America anyway) if we break them.

[TySixtus]

According to Atheists who like to stop at the OT and completely ignore the NT and Jesus Christ, I guess that's what you believe, yeah
What part of "The NT doesn't change what happened in the OT" do you not get? I can't make any more analogies.



Sorry, but not taking the NT into account doesn't make your argument strong with a Christian. We believe because of the NT, it changes everything and the OT is understood in context of the NT.

But you don't disagree that god killed a whole bunch of babies.

If you really have such a beef with the OT then your argument is with Orthodox Jews. Do you spend time on Jewish sites lambasting Judaism about the OT? Or do you just oppose Christians about it whilst ignoring Jesus Christ of the NT?

The New Testament has it's own problems, separate from the OT.

[TySixtus]

Haha well that question is a mess.

I disagree with the death penalty. But a "system" can't be a murderer. The state, as an entity, is murdering people, yes. And it's despicable. I find it horrific that we still kill people for crimes in this day and age.

So yes, the state engages in murders.

But then comparing god to a government entity will not help any of your arguments at all. I would advise you to not travel that path.

What path? In the OT, God makes judgements according to Law. Sin is disobedience of His Law, just as under our civic laws we will be punished and potentially put to death (in America anyway) if we break them.

Yes but just because something is the law doesn't mean it's right. That's pretty much the problem, in fact.

[SallyAnne]

What part of "The NT doesn't change what happened in the OT" do you not get? I can't make any more analogies.



Sorry, but not taking the NT into account doesn't make your argument strong with a Christian. We believe because of the NT, it changes everything and the OT is understood in context of the NT.

But you don't disagree that god killed a whole bunch of babies.





During those judgements, according to the writings, everyone was condemned.

And in the NT, Jesus was sent to save.

[TySixtus]

Well at least you admit it. Condemning innocent babies to death is perfectly acceptable to you. Even as the creator of the universe -- with literally endless options before him -- god had to resort to killing babies. He couldn't, for example, require the Hebrews to take them and raise them as their own. Or something. Nope. Just kill them.

But killing people is no big deal, because they will be saved. So, no harm no foul.

[SallyAnne]

Haha well that question is a mess.

I disagree with the death penalty. But a "system" can't be a murderer. The state, as an entity, is murdering people, yes. And it's despicable. I find it horrific that we still kill people for crimes in this day and age.

So yes, the state engages in murders.

But then comparing god to a government entity will not help any of your arguments at all. I would advise you to not travel that path.

What path? In the OT, God makes judgements according to Law. Sin is disobedience of His Law, just as under our civic laws we will be punished and potentially put to death (in America anyway) if we break them.

Yes but just because something is the law doesn't mean it's right. That's pretty much the problem, in fact.




Ok, so you disagree with God's Law. You're not a sinner?

[TySixtus]

I'm not a sinner, so I'm not really worried about God's law.

[SallyAnne]

Well at least you admit it. Condemning innocent babies to death is perfectly acceptable to you. Even as the creator of the universe -- with literally endless options before him -- god had to resort to killing babies. He couldn't, for example, require the Hebrews to take them and raise them as their own. Or something. Nope. Just kill them.

But killing people is no big deal, because they will be saved. So, no harm no foul.


Sorry, but you mischaracterise what I believe. The context of the OT is mankinds fall into sin and evil. I see God's actions as Judgements, not some wild unthinking "killing babies" spree like we see today with abortions.

You clearly believe that a God of the Universe should not act against evil but allow it to continue.

[SallyAnne]

I'm not a sinner, so I'm not really worried about God's law.

That's the crux of the matter. You don't regard yourself as a sinner.

[TySixtus]

You clearly believe that a God of the Universe should not act against evil but allow it to continue.
God can act against "evil" (that he created) by means other than killing people. He's the creator of the universe, right? Limitless power? Yet you keep insisting that he "had to punish evil" by killing people.

[TySixtus]

I'm not a sinner, so I'm not really worried about God's law.

That's the crux of the matter. You don't regard yourself as a sinner.

No, I don't. Why should I?

[SallyAnne]

I'm not a sinner, so I'm not really worried about God's law.

That's the crux of the matter. You don't regard yourself as a sinner.

No, I don't. Why should I?


I dunno, I've just never met an atheist who never in their life told a lied, stole something, commited adultery, etc, you know....the honest ones usually admit to doing some sin even if they don't believe in God. I guess I just met the one sinless person that ever lived, apart from Jesus Christ that is....:D

[TySixtus]

That's the crux of the matter. You don't regard yourself as a sinner.

No, I don't. Why should I?


I dunno, I've just never met an atheist who never, lied, stole, commited adultery, etc, you know....the honest ones usually admit to doing some sin even if they don't believe in God. I guess I met the one sinless person that ever lived, apart from Jesus Christ that is....:D

Well I've never comitted adultery. I'm sure I've stolen pens from work or something.

But I don't buy your classification of those things as a "sin". That's a word Christians made up to classify bad behavior as somehow supernaturally bad.

[SallyAnne]

You clearly believe that a God of the Universe should not act against evil but allow it to continue.
God can act against "evil" (that he created) by means other than killing people. He's the creator of the universe, right? Limitless power? Yet you keep insisting that he "had to punish evil" by killing people.


There seems many instances where He was patient but people would not repent, same as it is today, nothing's changed, people still wont repent. You don't even believe you have committed any sins, how can you repent if you believe you haven't sinned?