|
29476. pelty - 6/24/2009 3:44:58 PM "Well, it's pretty much implied...if one is to have sex and thus procreate. Sex is saved for after one is married, according to your faith...so it's either get married or do without sex, right? Where am I misreading anything?"
You are not misreading anything, but this assumes that a) one wishes to get married at all and B) one wishes to have sex at all. As I also said, Christians who choose to abstain from sex prior to marriage do so, ultimately, out of obedience and gratitude to the God who they believe saved them. Do they believe that this is his will because of what they read in a book? Yes, but their response to the book is born out of a relationship with and love for their Savior. If that relationship was not there, then I would venture a guess that the book would not hold them back from doing whatever they wish. I simply mean to suggest that it is more complicated than your rather simplistic "rulebook model."
"I did not start this discussion...YOU responded to MsNo's statement. I admit I don't like what has been done in the name of religion...I agree with her...but you seem to be more exercised over me chiming in to the discussion."
I am not at all exercised, believe me. Happy to have you chime in. However, you wrote,
"I think organized religions have been the cause of some of the worst things that have happened in this world...but maybe by that I mean some of the people involved in organized religions."
Nothing that I can recollect had been said about this aspect until you included it. My response is simply that it is a rather unsubstantive position to hold if one applies it to all religions, including the religion of No Religion.
"but here's a hint: don't tell people they just don't understand Christianity and the Bible if you don't know facts about their lives. I wasn't BORN an atheist, any more than I was born a Christian. But I was baptized and taught the faith and went to church and studied the Bible, just like I assume you did. I simply came to different conclusions than you."
I do not think I ever said anything about your knowledge of Christianity, did I? If so, I did not mean to as I know nothing about your background (well, now I guess I know a little bit about it...).
Ironically, I think Wal-Mart sells Atheist banners! ;-) 29477. judithathome - 6/24/2009 5:17:19 PM I'll have to check that one out...I have a feeling all the people who have the fish symbols on their cars (a majority of those in the parking lot at my local WalMart seems to have them) might protest if this were so. ;-)
Just so you know, I don't have one of the fish with legs on MY car...heh. 29478. Ms. No - 6/24/2009 5:36:49 PM Jen,
How do you know he was an atheist and not just a non-crazy Christian?
My cousin is a devout Southern Baptist and even she will say "I'm not one of those nutty Christians who thinks going to Disneyland will send you to Hell." 29479. judithathome - 6/24/2009 5:58:51 PM I'm sure Jen got that idea from the tracts he handed out and after he forced her to submit to his will...ya know, refusing to give her the seaweed rub unless she agreed to join his "church". 29480. arkymalarky - 6/24/2009 7:01:30 PM I'm sure you've said before, Pelty, but where are you from? Judith and I live in TX and AR respectively, and unfortunately that's relevant to some of what's been discussed about churches.
Another thing that really bugs me unrelated to judgment or prosletyzing, as someone who has quit going to church but would take it up if I had options, is that they've become such big social and fund-raising organizations and people won't just leave you alone and let you go to services. I'm busy and antisocial. I don't go to church to add a demanding group of people to my list of those who try to make me feel obligated whenever they decide they want to have some kind of event. Smaller rural churches, which are my main option, are the worst. It's fine for people who consider that a big part of their membership, but they ought to quit asking or prodding after you've said no a few times. 29481. Ms. No - 6/24/2009 7:22:00 PM Pelty,
At the heart of the matter, though, is the question of definition: What is a Christian?
Except that there isn't any question about that. A Christian is any person who believes Jesus Christ is the Messiah. All of the other questions --- was he born of a virgin, was he man or God or both and how much, does the Host really become His flesh or is it symbolic --- are questions to be asked and determined within the different Christian denominations.
I think the Evangelicalism of the 80s-90s probably wanted to nail down an orthodox definition of Christianity as a response to a blurring of the lines.
I think it's vital to look at how the neo-Conservative political movement bound itself to the Evangelicals during that time. This was when the GOP first really began its message of exclusion --- if you don't think just like us then you aren't really a Republican. That message carried over into the rhetoric of the Evangelical Church only you have to substitute "Christian" for "Republican." The GOP got a grassroots organization and the Church got a style of rhetoric. Whether anyone in the ruling powers of either organization was Machievellian enough to orchestrate this we'll probably never know. I think it was part planning and part serendipity and at first the advantages for both Church and Party seemed boundless.
However, it ends up being a cautionary tale about the dangers of entwining Church and State.
As you stated:
...the Christians missed the problem that can arise from the identification of Christianity, and thus Christ, with politics. People become opposed to the gospel message, which is supposedly central to the orthodox Christians mentioned above, because they identify it with those who, in the people's minds, seek to limit their freedoms.
1988 marked the last time California was a Red state in a presidential election. I think people forget that California had always been a Red state with the possible exception of Barry Goldwater's run. As the GOP became more focused on polarizing social issues --- rather than economic issues --- it turned off a lot of voters.
Just so, you pointed out the politicizing of the Evangelical message likely turned a lot of people off of Christ.
cont. 29482. Ms. No - 6/24/2009 7:26:29 PM cont. to pelty
I DO think they have the right to voice their concerns on social issues with which they disagree since they live in a society that gives them that right.
I agree. I may not like what someone has to say but I believe in a person's inherent right to express his opinion.
This next I have a bit of difficulty with:
If they can persuade the public that theirs is the correct perspective on a social issue, then that is just the way it goes in a democratic-republican system.
We have a representative democracy so that the majority doesn't disenfranchise the minority. The separation of Church and State protects both from the other.
Everybody is all about "majority rules" until they aren't members of the majority. Majority did not rule on issues of slavery, child labor, miscegenation and civil rights. Those things were determined by the courts and enforced on the population because sometimes the majority is just wrong --- as they quickly came to accept when they failed to overthrow the government for making them allow blacks and whites to marry. 29483. pelty - 6/24/2009 7:27:49 PM "I'm sure you've said before, Pelty, but where are you from? Judith and I live in TX and AR respectively, and unfortunately that's relevant to some of what's been discussed about churches."
I live in the Northeast and have attended churches either in this area or in the Midwest. I have not had the pleasure (or lack thereof, in some cases) of attending church in the South. 29484. pelty - 6/24/2009 7:33:23 PM "We have a representative democracy so that the majority doesn't disenfranchise the minority. The separation of Church and State protects both from the other.
Everybody is all about "majority rules" until they aren't members of the majority. Majority did not rule on issues of slavery, child labor, miscegenation and civil rights. Those things were determined by the courts and enforced on the population because sometimes the majority is just wrong --- as they quickly came to accept when they failed to overthrow the government for making them allow blacks and whites to marry."
Fair enough. I simply meant that if one group presents their side of the argument in such a way as to convince others to vote in favor of it, then that is simply the way the system works. Of course, the judicial branch certainly can play a role in whether a given law ultimately remains on the books. I meant nothing sinister in my statement... 29485. pelty - 6/24/2009 7:40:30 PM "Except that there isn't any question about that. A Christian is any person who believes Jesus Christ is the Messiah."
What do you mean by this? 29486. pelty - 6/24/2009 7:42:38 PM And that last question is not meant to pull out *your* personal beliefs but is meant to pull from you a more narrow definition. "Messiah" means what, exactly? 29487. anomie - 6/24/2009 9:23:56 PM Pelty,
Introduce me to Jesus, please. What a miracle THAT would be! Better yet, have him join the Mote. I have a LOT of questions. 29488. pelty - 6/24/2009 9:46:27 PM "Introduce me to Jesus, please. What a miracle THAT would be!"
Indeed, but I suspect not for the reasons you have in mind. In you, anomie, I smell a troll and have no interest in engaging in a discourse based upon such a foundation. If you have other things you would like to discuss of slightly greater substance, then I am open to it as time permits... 29489. alistairConnor - 6/24/2009 10:22:19 PM Anomie and I belong to the "religion of no religion".
(I'm enjoying this discussion, Pelty, but you should perhaps let up on these snide passive-agressive jibes that you try to pass off as jokes when you're called on them. I have no religion sir, and that is not a religion. L'enfer, c'est les autres.) 29490. anomie - 6/24/2009 10:25:01 PM Pelty, I'm merely pointing out how silly your language is at times. If you could truly introduce people to Jesus, you wouldn't need much else in the way of persuasion, or brainwashing. It goes to show your Christian message is a lie and no better than a magician's misdirection. You know perfectly well you can not introduce people to Jesus and yet you use such language. Why? Why do you flat out lie to people?
And then you talk of "Biblical morality", as though it is somehow superior to some other kind of morality. Lies and deceptive assertions...Sunday school stories of murder, Satan, sin, shame, punishment, flawed heros, and an angry maniacal God...Biblical morality,indeed.
I take you up on one simple offer: "Introduce me to Jesus", and you run away with your tail between your legs. That's a Christian for ya.
- The Troll 29491. anomie - 6/24/2009 10:38:25 PM Hey Pelty,
Let me follow AC's example and apologize for my tone and explain where I'm coming from.
I think the the Christian message too ofetn goes unchallenged. You work on certain assumptions and most people will engage you with some acceptance of those assumptions. These are briefly, that Christian morality is "good", and that you use language in a metaphorical way (which is often really just meaningless), and that there certain important poinst of doctrine, (Just what exactly doi you mean by "Messiah").
And I make the point, sometimes in exasperation, that We don't have to accept any of these premises. I think Christianity is NOT "good". I don't accept vague meaningless references in the use of language (Meet Jesus), and I don't have to limit my discussion to stay within your doctrinal frame of reference.
Having said that, I could very easily have a discussion using ONLY doctrines, concepts, and Biblical frameworks within YOUR belief system. It would be a discussion that yuo not be very happy with. IOW, Christianity can use its own concepts to destroy itself.
So anyway, please carry on with the others and I'll bow out, and again, I'm sorry for coming at you so abruptly. 29492. anomie - 6/24/2009 10:41:09 PM AC, Just to be clear, I meant to cite your example of civility, as you certainly had no need to apologize for anything. But it was your post that made me reconsider my attitude. 29493. pelty - 6/24/2009 10:45:04 PM "I'm enjoying this discussion, Pelty, but you should perhaps let up on these snide passive-agressive jibes that you try to pass off as jokes when you're called on them. "
Not sure what you mean by this. I have allowed my snide passive-aggressive remarks to stand and have only tried to make sure that I clarify my meaning in the times I have been misunderstood and *thought* to be being snide or what-have-you. That said, I have not looked back at the entire discussion, so I may be wrong. I find sarcastic humor to be funny, I must admit, so if it bleeds into my conversations, it is not surprising. I will try to ease up on it, I suppose... maybe. 29494. arkymalarky - 6/24/2009 10:54:42 PM I thaink everyone's doing fine, truly. It's a great read, imo. 29495. pelty - 6/24/2009 11:13:13 PM anomie,
Thank you for your second post (most recent). Re: the word "introduce," I am struggling to find where I said that. I am not denying that I *did* say it, but I am not seeing it. Would you please help me on this?
You wrote:
"I think the the Christian message too ofetn goes unchallenged. You work on certain assumptions and most people will engage you with some acceptance of those assumptions. These are briefly, that Christian morality is "good", and that you use language in a metaphorical way (which is often really just meaningless), and that there certain important poinst of doctrine, (Just what exactly doi you mean by "Messiah")."
As for the morality argument, I think that "secular morality" (for lack of a better term) is generally on a par with "Christian morality" in the basics. I think "love your neighbor," etc. is something that most of us could agree on and is a tenet found in many different moral and philosophical systems. Where "Christian morality" differs from "secular morality" or other religious/philosophical systems is in how God views our morality. Now, this presupposes a number of things that I do not expect non-Christians to buy into (note that I do not suggest they cannot understand them) - a) the existence of God, b) the notion that he, rather than humanity, is the arbiter of True Morality, c) if a notion such as True Morality exists, d) etc. If there is no "buy-in" of these things, then I think "secular morality" to be a natural means of living life.
As you know given your background (did I read you had some "churching" in your past?), a Christian will buy points a-d and thus find that from the perspective of their god, "secular morality" falls short of his perfect standard. While I may believe this to be true, I HAVE NO SUCH EXPECTATIONS of secular moralists or even of other religionists or philosophers. That said, I do buy into b) True Morality, and thus I do think my worldview to be True and, in a sense, "good" (to use your word). But if you are honest with yourself, do you not think to some degree that you view your worldview to be "true" (and mine false as ours cannot co-exist, can they?)? (cont.)
|
