(April 7, 2017 at 12:50 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 6, 2017 at 3:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I guess the problem is that a lot of the members here seem to know pretty much only the types of Christian people who are extremely ignorant, deny science, and hate gays (or perhaps those are simply the only ones who stick out in their mind?). I'm not going to deny anyone here that this has been their personal experience with Christian folks, but personally for me, I truly don't see that. For example, only once in my life did I ever talked to a person who said they don't believe in evolution. I have literally only heard that once from one person, lol. I mean, sure, you see and hear about crazy people on TV or whatever, but that's why they are on TV... because they are crazy and not your average person.  

My experience has been that most of us are just completely normal people, who aren't complete morons and who don't hate others for their sexual preference. Especially having been living the military lifestyle for the past 4 years, and being surrounded by a TON of Christians who are totally friendly, intelligent, educated,and normal. So it's hard for me to understand all this talk on the forums about Christians being this and being that. Perhaps a lot of you guys are from the deep south? I've lived in Brazil, Ohio, Florida, and Texas, so I don't know what the culture is like in that part of the country. Maybe therein lies the difference... I dunno.

I also find a number of atheist, who seem to not be able to contemplate a Christianity that is different than what is in their mind.  This may be from experience, or perhaps there are other motivations to why they argue what they do.  It is quite annoying however being expected to defend something that you don't believe, and where not saying.   It seems like often I spend more time trying to get people to let go of there assumptions.  

With that being said, there are a number of different views in Christianity.  I was on a Christian Forum before, and there where some pretty wacky ideas, that where not normally very well supported.  Some of the particularly interesting ones that I found dealt with going back to the Greek, and arguing that the orthodox view was a translation issue.   The problem often being, is that the the Greek Orthodox, didn't hold this view, historically, or contemporarily and it only came about late, mostly from people who had minor education in Koine Greek language.  These differences can originate by coming from a different worldview, sometimes from ignorance or because they just haven't though about it much, and somethings are debatable.   I find these same things occur in atheism too.   The difference being, that individualism  is often championed concerning atheists, yet belittled when in regards to believers.  It's not a consistent principal, and really doesn't have any logical consequence concerning Christianity.   When I am in contact, with someone who disagree's, I ask why.   I normally, I strive to be able to answer that question when asked of me as well.  

By the way, I am one who could say, that I don't believe in evolution,   I could also say I'm skeptical; and that I believe in evolution.   All depends on what you are talking about when you say evolution.  So perhaps you have not met two people.   However my thoughts on evolution are not relevant to my theology.

What is to "contemplate"?

Men don't magically pop out of dirt.
Women don't magically pop out of a man's rib.
Snakes and donkeys and bushes DONT TALK
The flood never happened, and even if we pretend it did, it would still have Noah's family fucking each other to re populate the planet.

There is no such thing as a virgin birth.
Humans don't die on a cross, have all the blood drained out of their body, suffer complete organ/brain death and complete cellular death, suffer rigor mortis, and magically rise from the dead.

But even outside of that, morally no, do not ask me to believe that threat of torture is moral, threat of torture which is what the motif of hell is, is not an act of correction or containment, it is an act of revenge.

I know you hate that I wont waddle down your yellow brick road, but you don't get to blame me for reacting to what I was not around to write.

(April 7, 2017 at 1:05 pm)Jesster Wrote: To be fair with the Westboro Baptists, they are following scripture very clearly. They might be cherry picking a few parts of scripture that they like more, but they aren't doing that any more than the more friendly Christians. Even though I know which Christians I prefer to deal with, I'd still consider members of each group to be Christians. This goes back to my first post in this thread.

(April 5, 2017 at 9:32 am)Jesster Wrote: I'd remind you that many of us were Christians at some point. Our objections to Christianity are valid enough whether you identify with them or not. If I did want to argue against your specific beliefs, though, I would ask you what you believed instead. Individual Christians always interpret their religious beliefs in different ways.

That's about as vapid as saying that all opinions are equally valid. It's surprising how many atheists appeal to classical foundationalism when asking "evidence" then appeal to the principles of postmodern critical theory when doing comparative analysis.

(April 7, 2017 at 1:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 7, 2017 at 1:05 pm)Jesster Wrote: To be fair with the Westboro Baptists, they are following scripture very clearly. They might be cherry picking a few parts of scripture that they like more, but they aren't doing that any more than the more friendly Christians. Even though I know which Christians I prefer to deal with, I'd still consider members of each group to be Christians. This goes back to my first post in this thread.

That's about as vapid as saying that all opinions are equally valid. It's surprising how many atheists appeal to classical foundationalism when asking "evidence" then appeal to the principles of postmodern critical theory when doing comparative analysis.

Fuck off with your condescending bullshit. You're definitely not in the friendly Christian camp.

(April 7, 2017 at 1:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 7, 2017 at 1:05 pm)Jesster Wrote: To be fair with the Westboro Baptists, they are following scripture very clearly. They might be cherry picking a few parts of scripture that they like more, but they aren't doing that any more than the more friendly Christians. Even though I know which Christians I prefer to deal with, I'd still consider members of each group to be Christians. This goes back to my first post in this thread.

That's about as vapid as saying that all opinions are equally valid. It's surprising how many atheists appeal to classical foundationalism when asking "evidence" then appeal to the principles of postmodern critical theory when doing comparative analysis.

I have noticed the same (albeit with not the same robust vocabulary).   I think there is a reason.

(April 7, 2017 at 1:05 pm)Jesster Wrote: To be fair with the Westboro Baptists, they are following scripture very clearly. They might be cherry picking a few parts of scripture that they like more, but they aren't doing that any more than the more friendly Christians. Even though I know which Christians I prefer to deal with, I'd still consider members of each group to be Christians. This goes back to my first post in this thread.

(April 5, 2017 at 9:32 am)Jesster Wrote: I'd remind you that many of us were Christians at some point. Our objections to Christianity are valid enough whether you identify with them or not. If I did want to argue against your specific beliefs, though, I would ask you what you believed instead. Individual Christians always interpret their religious beliefs in different ways.

I believe I have already addressed this. When you ignore the fundamental teachings of Christ Himself, particularly the one teaching He said was most important, you have crossed the line. There is a massive difference between having different interpretations about some Old Testament stuff and how it was written, and going completely against Jesus' fundamental commandment to love.

---

PS- Also why I said in a different thread that Christianity defines itself mostly by the Gospels and the teachings of Christ. I stand by that despite objection from RR and Chad.

(April 7, 2017 at 1:30 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 7, 2017 at 1:05 pm)Jesster Wrote: To be fair with the Westboro Baptists, they are following scripture very clearly. They might be cherry picking a few parts of scripture that they like more, but they aren't doing that any more than the more friendly Christians. Even though I know which Christians I prefer to deal with, I'd still consider members of each group to be Christians. This goes back to my first post in this thread.

I believe I have already addressed this. When you ignore the fundamental teachings of Christ Himself, particularly the one teaching He said was most important, you have crossed the line. There is a massive difference between having different interpretations about some Old Testament stuff and how it was written, and going completely against Jesus' fundamental commandment to love.

This still seems a bit too much like a "no true Scotsman" stance to me.  You may not see them as Christians, but they sure do. They back up their stance as much as you do as well. Just claiming that they aren't really Christians doesn't make much of a difference to the rest of the world.

I'm not trying to paint all, or even most, Christians with that brush. I'm just saying that there are full ranges of people in every group. Thankfully this is a minority portion. I know too many good Christians to use this minority as default example.

(April 7, 2017 at 1:30 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 7, 2017 at 1:05 pm)Jesster Wrote: To be fair with the Westboro Baptists, they are following scripture very clearly. They might be cherry picking a few parts of scripture that they like more, but they aren't doing that any more than the more friendly Christians. Even though I know which Christians I prefer to deal with, I'd still consider members of each group to be Christians. This goes back to my first post in this thread.

I believe I have already addressed this. When you ignore the fundamental teachings of Christ Himself, particularly the one teaching He said was most important, you have crossed the line. There is a massive difference between having different interpretations about some Old Testament stuff and how it was written, and going completely against Jesus' fundamental commandment to love.

"Jesus said do this"
"Buddha said do this"
"Mohammed said do this"
"The Torah Talmud say do this" 

Yea and? Look again we can like you the individual and still point out that it is still your own pet claim. AGAIN you really should compare your claims of "Jesus said be kind, share and be charitable and help the poor" and compare  those ideas with the other religions. Buddhist and Muslims also point to those calls to compassion. So do Jews.

And again, that is not being handed down to humans through anything divine, it was already in us prior to knowing how to write.

(April 7, 2017 at 1:36 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(April 7, 2017 at 1:30 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I believe I have already addressed this. When you ignore the fundamental teachings of Christ Himself, particularly the one teaching He said was most important, you have crossed the line. There is a massive difference between having different interpretations about some Old Testament stuff and how it was written, and going completely against Jesus' fundamental commandment to love.

This still seems a bit too much like a "no true Scotsman" stance to me.  You may not see them as Christians, but they sure do. They back up their stance as much as you do as well. Just claiming that they aren't really Christians doesn't make much of a difference to the rest of the world.

I'm not trying to paint all, or even most, Christians with that brush. I'm just saying that there are full ranges of people in every group. Thankfully this is a minority portion. I know too many good Christians to use this minority as default example.

I don't see my stance on this (as I copied and pasted below) as "No True Scotsman." I see it as a completely reasonable distinction. 

 

(April 7, 2017 at 12:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'd say believing that Jesus is who He says He is, and striving to live by the teachings of Christ as depicted in the bible [should be a good benchmark].  

I think that's as basic and fundamental as you can get. If someone says they are a Christian but then they say they don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, I'd say that person's beliefs are not in line with Christian beliefs. If someone says they are Christian but they live a life of greed and hatred, I'd say that person is not living the Christian lifestyle.

...And again. I am not saying "so and so isn't a true Christian." Technically, if you were baptized Christian, you are a Christian. I'm referring to whether or not a person's beliefs are in line with Christian beliefs, and whether they are living a Christian life. 
If you don't believe Jesus was the son of God, your beliefs are not in line with Christianity. If you blatantly do the exact opposite of what Jesus Himself teaches us, then you are not living a Christian life.

---

(April 7, 2017 at 1:36 pm)Jesster Wrote: I'm not trying to paint all, or even most, Christians with that brush. I'm just saying that there are full ranges of people in every group. Thankfully this is a minority portion. I know too many good Christians to use this minority as default example.

But I do appreciate this.

(April 7, 2017 at 1:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't see my stance on this (as I copied and pasted below) as "No True Scotsman." I see it as a completely reasonable distinction. 

Disowning them as not true Christians is sometimes just a convenient way to make yourself appear cleaner. What does that change for the rest of the world? They're still there calling themselves Christians with plenty of arguments to back them up. They're still a self-proclaimed Christian group acting like dicks and making people dislike Christians. The problem doesn't go away like this.

At least I still see a lot of Christians calling them out for their actions and trying to correct them, so it's not like this is being ignored entirely. That's good.
 

(April 7, 2017 at 1:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If you don't believe Jesus was the son of God, your beliefs are not in line with Christianity. If you blatantly do the exact opposite of what Jesus Himself teaches us, then you are not living a Christian life.

I agree that believing Jesus was the son of God is a base requirement of Christianity. WBC falls in line with this. If you want to have a debate about what a Christian should act like, you should tell them. Telling me won't change anything at all. I still see two groups calling themselves true Christians and nothing improving because of it.

(April 6, 2017 at 9:41 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Um, my bad I guess?

What's that?  You did something bad?  (Three Hail Mary's should cover it - but not the football kind.)

---

(April 7, 2017 at 1:17 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Men don't magically pop out of dirt.
Women don't magically pop out of a man's rib.
Snakes and donkeys and bushes DONT TALK
The flood never happened, and even if we pretend it did, it would still have Noah's family fucking each other to re populate the planet.

There is no such thing as a virgin birth.

Aren't you forgetting something? What about supernatural occurrences? I mean, in the natural world none of that shit can happen. Fine. But what if we postulate the existence of an entirely separate realm of existence inhabited by one incredibly powerful sky fairy who can mess with our natural world even though we can't detect let alone touch His? Checkmate, atheists.