|
29367. vonKreedon - 10/24/2008 11:17:56 PM Well, this is the Religion and Philosophy thread.
I still don't understand your alleged confusion about Jen's answers to your questions. But it is quite clear that they are agenda driven, so perhaps the answers weren't what you were hoping for. 29368. anomie - 10/24/2008 11:18:36 PM And anyway, VK, didn't you say at first that her answer was "no"? Or that we could imply as much? And now you say of course she believes God founded the church. She has you confused too! Ha! 29369. anomie - 10/24/2008 11:21:33 PM You said, "But Jen, IMO, answers your question quite clearly, God did not establish any one institution to be "The Church", but rather..."
And then you said: "So logically she must believe that God founded the Church."
Please don't quibble over plurals.
So where's the clarity in Jen's reply when even her defender can't get it straight?
29370. vonKreedon - 10/24/2008 11:21:33 PM Nope, she says:
"Well, Protestants believe that the body of believers constitutes Christ's 'church'. As far as God claiming that one denomination/branch is the exclusive, sanctioned church, I do not believe that."
So, she believes that the Church founded by God consists for the community of believers, but that no one denomination, say the Catholic Church, can claim divine sanction for its franchise. Seems quite clear to me. 29371. vonKreedon - 10/24/2008 11:22:28 PM Errata:
consists for the community
Should be:
consists of the community 29372. anomie - 10/24/2008 11:22:48 PM Oh for pete's sake. We cross posted. See mine above, it shows you were clearly confused. 29373. vonKreedon - 10/24/2008 11:24:04 PM Nope, you are. 29374. anomie - 10/24/2008 11:24:40 PM VK, stop it please. She didn't say "founded by God". You're just being silly now. I won't do this with you anymore. Sorry, but it's too exasperating. 29375. vonKreedon - 10/24/2008 11:25:54 PM Ok, maybe you're not confused, but the alternative at this point is that you're soo agenda focused that you are being deliberately obtuse.
And either way, this conversation can serve no purpose any longer... 29376. anomie - 10/24/2008 11:54:23 PM VK, I didn't mind you saying I was confused. My "stop it please", was to your 29370, where you misstated what she said, again.
My disappointment is that what could have been an interesting exchange just dies in a dispute over what was meant instead of relying on what was actually said or asked. I don't blame you so much as Jen. This is what she hoped for, and she has been silent while you fell on your sword. 29377. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/25/2008 12:18:37 AM My problem with Jen's pronouncements of faith are that they usually boil down to God's will, which to my mind (and Saint Augustine's), no one can ever know.
So when I offered up some empirical examples of atrocious, non-Christian behaviors--like the many videos above--in the hopes of getting her to, at least, acknowledge the blatant hypocrisy of so many self-proclaimed Christians, she always ignored the salient issues in the very same annoyingly evasive ways that anomie is complaining about.
She is clever, but she is also transparent in her evasiveness and unwillingness to concede the flagrant contradictions and inconsistencies in her thinking.
I suspect that she is just prideful, stubborn and clings to her faith out of fear and habit of mind. Otherwise, she would be able to articulate her doubts and conflicted assumptions--like any other honest seeker of divine love. 29378. anomie - 10/25/2008 12:51:04 AM That's pretty well said. Although I like Jen,(I like you Jen), prideful and stubborn as she is, she can be exasperating as hell in a discussion, especially a discussion she doesn't want to have. 29379. Jenerator - 10/25/2008 3:49:42 PM Anomie,
I am not sure what it is you're trying to get me to say or admit, but if you would, just be upfront and tell me what it is? Are you suggesting that if I do not believe that God has sanctioned an official church body I.e. Methodists, there is no one who can claim authoritatively what is right/wrong, Christian/unChristian?
I am not really sure what you're getting at.
29380. Jenerator - 10/25/2008 4:09:19 PM My problem with Jen's pronouncements of faith are that they usually boil down to God's will, which to my mind (and Saint Augustine's), no one can ever know.
This is too simplistic. Even Augustine knew that the scriptures gave us a deep insight to God; and through the study of them, we're able to learn God's will to the best of our finite abilities.
So when I offered up some empirical examples of atrocious, non-Christian behaviors--like the many videos above--in the hopes of getting her to, at least, acknowledge the blatant hypocrisy of so many self-proclaimed Christians, she always ignored the salient issues in the very same annoyingly evasive ways that anomie is complaining about.
What you find atrocious and what others find atrocious can be different. Would you be offended if I showed smug and smarmy atheists and agnostics ridiculing McCain? In the grand scheme of things, a few people with different opinions morally outrage you? It's as though you're always tring to concoct scenarios of which is worse.
I suspect that she is just prideful, stubborn and clings to her faith out of fear and habit of mind.
Then you suspect wrong. My faith is not fear based and it's not a habit.
Otherwise, she would be able to articulate her doubts and conflicted assumptions--like any other honest seeker of divine love.
Of course I have doubts and conflicted assumptions. Why would I throw them into the lion's den here, though? One time I mentioned some doubts I was having and Sakonige came in like a starving vulture, and the rest followed.
29381. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/25/2008 4:57:44 PM Jen, your post just confirmed every one of my contentions about your argumentation. Moreover, you still seem totally unaware of your own basic and, I would contend, unconscious assumptions.
I am not attacking you, I'm criticizing your words and your methods, which are, frankly, often devious and evasive. You never question or admit to your bias or your doubts; your pronouncements can be shockingly outrageous and you seem incognizant of their effect.
I'm sure you've been attacked often and that your feelings have been bruised--but you don't seem to understand that the rationale behind your faith and your beliefs is often regurgitated evangelical boilerplate. You reveal more of your true self with comments like the Sakonige one above.
You exhibit no humility. Everything is a battle of good and evil and you stubbornly defend untenable behaviors in the name of Christ. You're missing the point about Christ. He was about love, not law--compassion, not intolerance. When are you going to get it? 29382. anomie - 10/25/2008 6:12:53 PM Jen, forget it. I can't believe you just asked me to be "up front" with you. But anyway, I've lost interest and should we continue I think you'd just keep trying to trap me in the labyrinth of your mind, and I just don't have the energy for it. 29383. anomie - 10/25/2008 6:18:49 PM evangelical boilerplate = Protestant orthodoxy = Jen's earthly church authory = extrabiblical = church custom overiding a personal relationship with God = just like Catholics. 29384. jexster - 10/26/2008 6:49:59 PM Election Novena Day 1
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
29385. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/26/2008 7:30:58 PM 
29386. jexster - 10/27/2008 12:21:59 AM This should sound familiar..
From Landover Babdiss
WASILLA, ALASKA HAS MORE PEOPLE THAN HEAVEN WILL
Posted by tiffanywellsley on October 5, 2008
The charming moderator of this board has invited me to give my thoughts on heaven. Let’s skip the rhetoric. First, no one is there yet. I am sick and tired of hearing people say their deceased mother or grandmother or uncle or friend or child is in heaven with God. No one is in heaven but God, you moron. The Bible clearly says that no one will ascend to heaven until Jesus returns to the Earth and smashes it to bits, and Judgment Day occurs. So, your deceased relatives and friends are rotting in bug-infested boxes. Accept it!
Frankly, if I were running the show, the stupidity of people who believe their dead loved ones are communing with God now would be enough to disqualify them from eternal bliss. But God isn’t as strict as I am. He has said, through the apostles, that anyone who asks Jesus to enter his life as his personal Lord and Savior will enter heaven. This means that people must be born again. Since some of the most despicable people imaginable may very well have turned their lives over to the Lord on their deathbeds (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, JFK, MLK), this provision can be disconcerting.
But consider the fact that it means heaven won’t be all that crowded. Most people never accept Jesus as their Savior and therefore won’t enter heaven. First, all non-Christians (meaning the vast majority of the planet) will perish in hell. Thank goodness, because that curry smell really bothers me.
It matters not whether the individual is young or old, white or black, straight or perverted – if he didn’t ask Jesus to enter his heart and take over his life at some time, he goes to hell. This, of course, includes all aborted fetuses, SIDS babies, children who died at a very young age and the mentally retarded. None were ever capable of accepting the Christ, hence none can enter the kingdom of heaven.
|
