Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
well, I do know that I was dating a girl when she became a "born again christian." I hung out with some of her new friends. friends who told me how sorry they were that my family was going to hell for being catholics and mormons. hmmmm, seems pretty intolerant to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
*chuckle*
While I disagree with your conclusion of Christianity and what it was based on, I think you got at one of the points from your perspective.
well, I do know that I was dating a girl when she became a "born again christian." I hung out with some of her new friends. friends who told me how sorry they were that my family was going to hell for being catholics and mormons. hmmmm, seems pretty intolerant to me.
Yeah, and all cops are bad. Come on. I will agree with you unconditional tolerance is not a doctrine of Christianity. Their incompatible with one another. If you stand for everything, you stand for nothing.
I am not saying that all christians are bad. quite the contrary. it's the hardcore extremists that suck. you can't rationalize with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonrise
Yeah, and all cops are bad. Come on. I will agree with you unconditional tolerance is not a doctrine of Christianity. Their incompatible with one another. If you stand for everything, you stand for nothing.
well, I do know that I was dating a girl when she became a "born again christian." I hung out with some of her new friends. friends who told me how sorry they were that my family was going to hell for being catholics and mormons. hmmmm, seems pretty intolerant to me.
Well, just like there are a lot of uneducated people making claims about political topics they know nothing about (or have wild misconceptions about), there are also Christians that are the same with Christianity. Also, you will meet many people who proclaim to be Christian, but have never truly accepted Christ in the first place. Its not for us to know their hearts though, we can only judge their actions.
What always happens is that people tie up the person with the sin and condemn both. Thats where you get the intolerance of people.
A better example of a person who acts correctly within their faith is to condemn the sin, not the person. We all sin, but it is tolerance and acceptance of sin that is the real issue as well as the lack of willingness to repent for them.
David in the Bible is referred to by God as a man after his own heart and yet David committed some whopper of sins (Murder and adultery), but it was the fact that David truly repent of his sins (honestly and sincerely) and did not continually repeat them, he learned from them.
The point is, if a person sins we are to condemn the sin, not the person. We are to encourage people to stray away from sin and if we can not do that, we are to cut off our relationship with those who purposely choose to sin. Sin is not to be tolerated, accepted, or condoned.
Those who you dealt with have problems recognizing their own faults. They seek to pick that spec of wood from your eye, while ignoring the plank in their own and in the process they push away people from Christ in doing so and that in and of itself is a sin.
Sign of the America we live in. Remember the same secular arguement for gay marriage cannot be used for an issue like gay clergy which is within the church. It sounds like the Presbyterian church is now an apostate Church, going after its own lusts instead of after God. God is not mocked, and well judge these people on judgement day. Because man calls something holy that God considers vile and disgusting doesn't make it okay before God.
This is an obvious attempt at misdirection, but I will simply say that your interpetation of this claim is common for someone who merely skims the text looking for self served conclusions. If you would honestly like me to explain this, its relation to differing doctrines and the like, I would be happy to, but if you are just throwing out red herrings, then I will not oblige you.
No, it was not misdirection. The fact that you have to explain what's "clearly" stated in the text of the Bible only serves to bolster the original point that I made, which is that what you perceive is relative and subject to interpretation. You can attempt to prevaricate that stark reality all you want to, it doesn't make one bit of difference to me. If you can explain away shellfish and put it in "context," then you can most certainly do the same for homosexuality. You are affirming your own prejudices by opting to illuminate me on shellfish and make pardons for it while disregarding the obvious contention that homosexuality demands to be placed in the same holistic context where you are willing to place other pronouncements of the Bible. Again, selective permissibility on what constitutes biblical "truth."
Quote:
That is an assertion you make, not a statement of fact. Many doctrines don't directly conflict with each other in terms of the Bibles claim, they often use them as a means to which they think is best in serving God and those who differ will often explain it as so. There are some that differ greatly and are sometimes at odds with each other, but this is more so due to mans desires than God's. God is only confusing to those who seek to glorify themselves above God.
Firstly, we are not dealing with facts, we are dealing with opinions, since religion and how it is construed is inherently subjective and basically relies on individual discernment. At any rate, everything you've written here is a reinforcement of the relativity of Christianity and other religious doctrines. You are quick to decry the erroneous practices of other Christian sects and state that they are not accurately following God's word and serving their own purposes, and are thus not "real" Christians (which is the root of your argument). That is incredibly condescending, far-fetched, and preposterous. You are no more or less privy to the "truth" of God than any other Christian who cogitates religious text and what it means to be a Christian. It's a different face of the same coin, and if the superficial, disdainful barriers which you seek to erect around Christianity are your only means of endorsing your interpretation of it, it follows that your faith is as petty, exclusive, and untenable as your arguments.
Quote:
I can only speak as to which the God's word instructs. You may think it progress, but then you do not ever view the issue within. Your judgements on the issue are built off of your own criteria. That is, since you do not believe God exists, that this is all mans creation, you see no problem with it changing to meet mans needs. If you however viewed it from within taking into account that this is true, that God's word is all, then you can not hold the position you claim. If one is truly willing to evaluate the religions own direction, it must be viewed as such from the position within.
I never stated that I don't believe God exists. I don't believe what you believe in, and how you interpret and vindicate what you believe. An absence of Christianity is not an absence of spirituality, which is what you appear to presume.
I have no "criteria" for judging people, since it is not an interest or goal of mine to judge them. Homosexuality predates Christianity and it certainly cannot contain it, as it has sought to do through its manipulation of guilt and gullibility. It is not about changing anything to meet man's needs; it's about acknowledging that which is unchangeable, permanent, and deserving of proper recognition.
Quote:
That does not mean you need to believe yourself, merely that you must view each issue as if you did and hold its value according to that condition. If you do not, you fail in the ability to properly asses the conditions because you invalidate the position merely from your evaluating perspective. That is, your premise is invalidly built and any conclusion you make will also become invalid.
I feel the same way toward you regarding the confluence of Christianity and homosexuality.
Quote:
Again, you are not evaluating it within its own context, but outwardly with the context you choose. We are not discussing if Christianity is right or wrong, at least I was not, but rather is it right or wrong within its own context. As I said, you do not use its own context, but your own so it easily supports your conclusion. Just like an eastern religion can not be evaluated with a western mind thought (one must shed away their own personal expectations and evaluate at it within its own context), a non-religious person can not dictate the conditions of a religion based upon their own standards of non-belief. This is not an issue of your personal acceptance of homosexuality or your personal belief of it being a sin, but rather through the context of what the belief states it as and since you never operate from that perspective, your conclusions are always invalid.
The "context" is relative for you, apparently. That is what you continually fail to comprehend, as you have shown through your feeble responses to my comments. As I've stated, be willing to contextualize homosexuality the way you are willing to do other aspects of biblical text. There are no absolutes here, save the actuality that religion is a matter of perception. The Presbyterian Church, therefore, has done nothing wrong.
Quote:
It makes perfect sense to you because it is a system by which you define the standards. Christianity makes perfect sense when it is evaluated within its own context of belief. You contaminate your "judgment" from the beginning because you do not objectively evaluate it within its own merits.
I don't "define" anything. You seek to proclaim the incompatibility of Christianity with what this particular church has decided is no longer fit. If anything, you are guilty of not "objectively" assessing the situation relative to the historic evolution of scriptural tenets. Thus, you are assuming your own standards about what is and isn't relevant and drawing your conclusions based upon that arbitrary and normative stance.
Besides, if I were you, I would refrain from the inclusion of "logic" in anything that you attempt to refute, since it is clearly not a concept that you understand or respect.
No, it was not misdirection. The fact that you have to explain what's "clearly" stated in the text of the Bible only serves to bolster the original point that I made, which is that what you perceive is relative and subject to interpretation. You can attempt to prevaricate that stark reality all you want to, it doesn't make one bit of difference to me. If you can explain away shellfish and put it in "context," then you can most certainly do the same for homosexuality. You are affirming your own prejudices by opting to illuminate me on shellfish and make pardons for it while disregarding the obvious contention that homosexuality demands to be placed in the same holistic context where you are willing to place other pronouncements of the Bible. Again, selective permissibility on what constitutes biblical "truth."
Firstly, we are not dealing with facts, we are dealing with opinions, since religion and how it is construed is inherently subjective and basically relies on individual discernment. At any rate, everything you've written here is a reinforcement of the relativity of Christianity and other religious doctrines. You are quick to decry the erroneous practices of other Christian sects and state that they are not accurately following God's word and serving their own purposes, and are thus not "real" Christians (which is the root of your argument). That is incredibly condescending, far-fetched, and preposterous. You are no more or less privy to the "truth" of God than any other Christian who cogitates religious text and what it means to be a Christian. It's a different face of the same coin, and if the superficial, disdainful barriers which you seek to erect around Christianity are your only means of endorsing your interpretation of it, it follows that your faith is as petty, exclusive, and untenable as your arguments.
Putting something into context places its true meaning. You use out of context to proclaim an issue, yet all you show is your lack of understanding of the text. Some things are very clear, others require cross referencing to place it within its context. This is done in the Bible all the time, the disciples when carrying the word used the proper context all the time to clarify to people the teachings. The simple fact here is you honestly don't understand what you are talking about and attempt to use it as a claim of validity when it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nodixieforme
I never stated that I don't believe God exists. I don't believe what you believe in, and how you interpret and vindicate what you believe. An absence of Christianity is not an absence of spirituality, which is what you appear to presume.
I have no "criteria" for judging people, since it is not an interest or goal of mine to judge them. Homosexuality predates Christianity and it certainly cannot contain it, as it has sought to do through its manipulation of guilt and gullibility. It is not about changing anything to meet man's needs; it's about acknowledging that which is unchangeable, permanent, and deserving of proper recognition.
I feel the same way toward you regarding the confluence of Christianity and homosexuality.
The "context" is relative for you, apparently. That is what you continually fail to comprehend, as you have shown through your feeble responses to my comments. As I've stated, be willing to contextualize homosexuality the way you are willing to do other aspects of biblical text. There are no absolutes here, save the actuality that religion is a matter of perception. The Presbyterian Church, therefore, has done nothing wrong.
I don't "define" anything. You seek to proclaim the incompatibility of Christianity with what this particular church has decided is no longer fit. If anything, you are guilty of not "objectively" assessing the situation relative to the historic evolution of scriptural tenets. Thus, you are assuming your own standards about what is and isn't relevant and drawing your conclusions based upon that arbitrary and normative stance.
Over all, your position is that none of the texts are valid and that people can choose to interpret them as they see fit. If this were the case I could justify anything through clever use of the Bible to support any sin and you will find that many great atrocities have been committed throughout history using this very approach. Christianity is meaningless if man decides all.
Its not Christianity, it is a perversion of the word to fit mans desires. If people truly accept him, they will strive to understand his word and not make excuses that fit their own lifestyle or comfort. Man does not dictate his will to God.
Besides, if I were you, I would refrain from the inclusion of "logic" in anything that you attempt to refute, since it is clearly not a concept that you understand or respect.
You attempt to proclaim a subjectivist position as the ruler here, but the Bible is not a subjective bed pan for people to squat in. As to my response, it was a logically fallacy as it did not contest anything and was essentially an adhominen attack. Are you now going to insert subjective interpretations on the rules of debate as well? If so, there is no point in discussing anything with you as there is no path that you follow that would provide sane dialog. A discussion lost in the woods is merely a waste of time and I have no wish to wander aimlessly with you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
