What is "real" Christianity?

zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
What is "real" Christianity?

I would like to know once and for all precisely what "judeo-christian" means. The phrase "judeo-christian values" is bandied about ever and anon, with such implied objectivity, that one presumes to end (and win) any discussion by merely mentioning it. Yet when I examine the phrase, it is anything but clear what is meant herein. judaism and christianity, in a broad sense, are in dispute on many topics (including, but not limited to, the divinity of jesus). Why are they then cobbled together in this catch-phrase? Because they share a common tradition? Islam parttakes just as much from this tradition. Would george bush sound less credible should he say "judeo-christian-islamic"? judaism and islam are in agreement that jesus was not divine. christianity and islam are in agreement that jesus was a man of god. So how do we settle on "judeo-christian"?

Examining further, we see that judaism and christianity are decidedly heterodox. There are orthodox jews, conservative jews, reform jews, hasidic. There are jews who believe the book of genesis is historical, and that Israel is ordained by divine right. Yet there are also gay and atheist synagogues.

"Christian" serves to identify Pat Robertson (evangelical TV personality), pope benedict (catholic, termed the anti-christ by some other denominations), Gene Robinson (gay episcopalian minister), Fred Phelps (hates homosexuals, loves IEDs), and Ted Haggard (hates homosexuals, except when he's getting massaged). The amish are christian, who reject technology. The megachurches are christian, which are so hi-tech they need their own electric grids. New denominations pop up all the time with new twists on the old story, while some denominations now exist only as encyclopedia articles.

So what is "judeo-", what is "christian", and what is "judeo-christian". I simply feel that when one uses the phrase, one seeks to tap the support of all to whom that phrase applies, which cuts fairly wide in its scope. If we define the particulars, and settle on what exactly values the phrase indicates, the scope of that phrase might shrink drastically. We would at least have greater clarity in our discussions and that would be a good thing.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
maybe you should direct this

maybe you should direct this question to stmichael?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
bump

I'd like to revisit this topic as I've seen the "No True Scotsman" fallacy popping up of late in the threads. In one instance,seen in this thread, a contributor claims that he knows his interpretation of the scriptures is correct because of "the holy spirit and a relationship with God". If "a relationship with god" is attainable, and therefrom a proper interpretation of the bible, why have we not settled on one correct christian denomination, but rather have so many in operation? A christian might have greater credibility if there were not so many other self-professed christians who disagree with him.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm not surprised that

I'm not surprised that you're getting no help on this one, z.

One of the reasons I think many theists are actually full of shit as opposed to completely deluded is that they seem perfectly capable of avoiding select arguments... like this one.

Even the most indoctrinated person can see the danger in espousing "The One True Scotsman... err.. Christian" or defining Judeo-Christianity.  As soon as one thing is definitely true, it is open to definite rebuttal.

My other least favorite defense, "Defense by Redefinition" is only possible with Christianity so long as there's wiggle room.  Defining it clearly would be, well... pretty stupid, when the best defense is being able to say, "it's not like that definition of the word, it's like the other definition, the one that isn't defined."

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Yeah, I guess it was a vain

Yeah, I guess it was a vain expectation someone would have the ballz to take it on. I figured one should be obliged to answer, since they so freely use the term "christianity", without any specification.

Oh well, I tried. History should treat me kindly.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
I don't know if there's such

I don't know if there's such a thing as "real christianity".  Christianity changes from generation to generation, so it's a tough call. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I've never met or heard of a

I've never met or heard of a real christian. Just a lot of people who claim to be. Considering that a christian must follow the bible absolutely to be a christian, and that the bible contradicts itself on a few seperate points, it is literally impossible to be a real christian.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
Christianity is SUPPOSED to

Christianity is SUPPOSED to be a large collective of well to do people, and people who do good things.

 

What Christianity REALLY is is a bunch of fucked up lethargic half obese FOX NEWS channel watching rejects of society with nothing better to do except complain about how fat they are and how Gore is pro choice which means he supports abortion and how Bush is a good god faring man so he's worth my vote because I go to church on sunday even though I cheat on my hubby or spouse with the neighbors dog or goat or whatever I'm feeling up to on any paricular day.

 

*cough*

 

...sorry. 

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
jmm wrote: I don't know if

jmm wrote:
I don't know if there's such a thing as "real christianity". Christianity changes from generation to generation, so it's a tough call.

Is that reason enough to endorse its absconsion? 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


JHenson
Theist
Posts: 112
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
"Judeo-Christian" is

"Judeo-Christian" is probably intended to refer to the basic agreements between the two religions: God, the basic story of creation (be it symbolic or literal), and the figures in the Biblical Old Testament (or the Jewish Tanakh).

The difference begins at Jesus Christ, or properly after his ascension and what is called the "Great Commission" to spread the gospel.  Jews do not believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah ("Christ" in Greek, the language the New Testament was written in).  Jesus Christ did not simply come to spread some good teachings, he fulfilled the Jewish law (that is, the laws brought by Moses from God).

 That means obligation to the law is relinquished.  The Mosaic Law was called a "covenant," a promise.  We are now under a new covenant.  It is not the first time God has reportedly made new covenants, either. The new promise is basically that God has personally sacrificed himself for our forgiveness, done because we are unable to do it for ourselves.

Islam doesn't reasonably fit into this scheme because the Qu'ran is reportedly the "true" Bible, as the previous ones have been corrupted with time.  There are numerous differences between the two, the earliest of which might be that Ishmael was the chosen son of Abraham instead of Isaac.  That would mean the racial and religious descendants are completely different between Jews and Islamics.

Truthfully, Jews ought to think Christians are as heretical as Islamics think Jews are.  The term undoubtedly originates with Christians not wanting to exclude Jews, since Christian theology does not exclude Jews from God's new covenant.

Hope that at least helps to answer your question!

"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Thank you for

Thank you for responding.

 I will first point out that Islam does share the "basic agreements" you listed in regard to god, creation, etc.  As far as Islam's stance on the corrupt texts:  It holds that the Torah, the Psalms, and jesus' teachings (Injil) were in fact correct when originally imparted by god - and it was their corruption over time that made the provision of the qu'ran necessary.  

By your statement that "Jews ought to think Christians are as heretical as Islamics think Jews are", are you asserting that the term judeo-christian is inappropriate, or ought still to be used? 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: would

zarathustra wrote:
would like to know once and for all precisely what judeo-christian; means.
Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian, which meas Christianity was built on a base of Judaism. That is why Judaism and Christianity are often lumped together…you cannot truly separate the two. Societies, institutions that were/are heavily influenced by Christianity therefore become “judeo-christian.”

zarathustra wrote:
It is anything but clear what is meant herein. judaism and christianity, in a broad sense, are in dispute on many topics (including, but not limited to, the divinity of jesus).
I find it quite clear. Jesus was a Jew, plain and simple.

zarathustra wrote:
Islam parttakes just as much from this tradition.
The Christain holy book contains the Jewish holy book. The Koran does not contain versus from either Judaism or Christianity.

zarathustra wrote:
Would george bush sound less credible should he say judeo-christian-islamic
He would not say that, because Islam is quite different from Christianity. There are quite a few derogatory statements in the Koran about Christians and Jews. The Koran was written in one man’s lifetime. The Bible was written over hundreds of years. The Koran came from one man, the Bible came from dozens… So, I guess I’m missing the similarities between Islam and Christianity that you are seeing. As far as I can tell, they are quite different

zarathustra wrote:

So what is judeo-
The OT. Jesus, and the fact that he was a Jew and spent his life studying Jewish texts which were the influence of his teaching. Jesus believed the Jewish texts were God-breathed, therefore, as Christians, we believe the same thing and therefore highly esteem the Jewish texts.
zarathustra wrote:
what is christian
The NT.
zarathustra wrote:
and what is judeo-christian
This term encompases societies, worldviews that have grown out of the OT and NT. The term judeo-christian applies to Christianity only. It does not apply to Judaism. Judaism, however, does get lumped under the umbrella sometimes because of it’s undeniably strong influence on Christianity.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
sugarfree wrote: Jesus was

sugarfree wrote:
Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian, which meas Christianity was built on a base of Judaism. That is why Judaism and Christianity are often lumped together…you cannot truly separate the two. Societies, institutions that were/are heavily influenced by Christianity therefore become “judeo-christian.”

To say "jesus was a jew" is too general. Even in the 1st century (the presumed time of jesus' existence), there were multiple jewish theologies in operation (Essenes, Pharisess, Sadducees, to name a few), just as there are multiple jewish denominations today. Only 1/4 of the jews at the time believed in the messianic prophecy. You cannot really "lump together" Judaism itself, much less add on a christian lump.

sugarfree wrote:
zarathustra wrote:
It is anything but clear what is meant herein. judaism and christianity, in a broad sense, are in dispute on many topics (including, but not limited to, the divinity of jesus).
I find it quite clear. Jesus was a Jew, plain and simple.

I don't find it quite clear. What does it mean to be a jew?

sugarfree wrote:
zarathustra wrote:
Islam parttakes just as much from this tradition.
The Christain holy book contains the Jewish holy book. The Koran does not contain versus from either Judaism or Christianity.

I said that islam parttakes of the same tradition. It acknowledges the same prophets (abraham, moses, solomon), only treating jesus as another prophet. As far as the "holy books", islam treats the torah, the psalms and the injil as holy books alongside the qu'ran.

And you are perhaps misguided in saying "the christian holy book contains the jewish holy book". I'm sure you're aware, that the Talmud, for instance, is not "contained" in the bible.

sugarfree wrote:

There are quite a few derogatory statements in the Koran about Christians and Jews.

Please give citations.

sugarfree wrote:

The Koran was written in one man’s lifetime. The Bible was written over hundreds of years. The Koran came from one man, the Bible came from dozens… So, I guess I’m missing the similarities between Islam and Christianity that you are seeing. As far as I can tell, they are quite different

Islam and judaism are in agreement that jesus was not divine, and therefore in disagreement with christianity. islam and christianity are in agreement that jesus was a man of god, and therefore in disagreement with judaism. I'm not certain why your comparison of the qu'ran being written by one man to the multiple authors of the bible should suffice to invalidate it.

sugarfree wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
So what is judeo-
The OT. Jesus, and the fact that he was a Jew and spent his life studying Jewish texts which were the influence of his teaching. Jesus believed the Jewish texts were God-breathed, therefore, as Christians, we believe the same thing and therefore highly esteem the Jewish texts.

You are perhaps missing the point of my question. What is the objective standard to determine what judaism is? There are multiple, incompatible versions of judaism. To simply retort "the OT" ignores that point entirely. Which denomination is reading the OT correctly?

sugarfree wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
what is christian
The NT.

You are perhaps missing the point of my question. What is the objective standard to determine what christianity is? There are multiple, incompatible versions of christianity. To simply retort "the NT" ignores that point entirely. What denomination is reading the NT correctly?

sugarfree wrote:
zarathustra wrote:
and what is judeo-christian
This term encompases societies, worldviews that have grown out of the OT and NT.

Islam represents just such a society.

sugarfree wrote:
The term judeo-christian applies to Christianity only. It does not apply to Judaism.

Then we should perhaps discard its use.


 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: To say

zarathustra wrote:
To say Jesus was a jew is too general. Even in the 1st century (the presumed time of jesus' existence), there were multiple jewish theologies in operation (Essenes, Pharisess, Sadducees, to name a few), just as there are multiple jewish denominations today. Only 1/4 of the jews at the time believed in the messianic prophecy. You cannot really "lump together" Judaism itself, much less add on a christian lump.
I disagree. I think, to say Jesus was a Jew regardless of his bent, is acceptible. I think you are over-analyzing it.

zarathustra wrote:
What does it mean to be a jew?
What does this question have to do with Jesus? This, I find is a common theme with you. It seems you analyze things into oblivion so that no truth will ever satisfy you. Jesus was a Jew. I believe that’s all that is needed for this argument.

zarathustra wrote:
Islam parttakes just as much from this tradition.
Muhammed may have borrowed from Christianity/Judaism. That does not make the two theologies one in the same. In fact, they are quite different.

zarathustra wrote:
As far as the Islam treats the torah, the psalms and the injil as holy books alongside the quran.
So why are Jews and Christains considered infidels, unclean, etc. by many in the Islamic faith?

zarathustra wrote:
I’m sure you’re aware, that the Talmud, for instance, is not contained in the bible.
Yes I am aware.

zarathustra wrote:
Please give citations.
These citations among others, to me, hint to the fact that Muslims were not walking hand in hand with Christains and Jews:
The Dinner Table 5.51
The Cattle 6.146
The Immunity 9.30
The Cow 2.120
The Family of Imran 3.67

zarathustra wrote:
Islam and christianity are in agreement that jesus was a man of god
They are not in agreement. In Islam he is merely a prophet, in Christianity he is the incarnation of God.

zarathustra wrote:
and therefore in disagreement with judaism.

Yes, Christianity is in disagreement with present day Judaism, but I would argue that the term judeo-christian only encompasses Jewish belief up to the NT.

zarathustra wrote:
I’m not certain why your comparison of the quran being written by one man to the multiple authors of the bible should suffice to invalidate it.
Here’s an analogy. When an ancient text is translated, is the translation more trustworthy if one scholar does all the translating, or if a team of scholars does the translating? I, personally, would place my bet with the team because they act as checks and balances to one another, keep each other in line, are available to each other for questioning in order to work out the more complex problems, etc.

zarathustra wrote:
You are perhaps missing the point of my question. What is the objective standard to determine what judaism is?
If you are simply trying to understand Judaism, I would leave Christianity out of it for the most part, except, possibly when speaking about messianic Jews.

zarathustra wrote:
There are multiple, incompatible versions of judaism. To simply retort the OT ignores that point entirely. Which denomination is reading the OT correctly?
Well, I think, ultimately, this is a decision you would have to make for yourself.

zarathustra wrote:
What is the objective standard to determine what christianity is? There are multiple, incompatible versions of christianity.
I disagree when you say the denominations of Christianity are incompatible. They are different, because different denominations decided somewhere along the line to emphasize one thing over another. But, the important truth, that Jesus was God incarnate, is the over-arching message that is shared by all, except possibly the fringe liberal left. The objective standard is the New Testament. The standard is not any one denomination. It’s the NT. Nothing more and nothing less.

zarathustra wrote:
What denomination is reading the NT correctly?
I think you are getting too caught up in the denominations. I doubt Jesus would approve of them either. They are a human invention. With Christianity, you should always use your brain and read the NT rather than following some man-made standard.

zarathustra wrote:
Then we should perhaps discard its use.
. I don’t think that is necessary. However, if you, from the start, don’t see Jesus as a Jew, then, yes, the term loses meaning.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I disagree. I

Quote:
I disagree. I think, to say Jesus was a Jew regardless of his bent, is acceptible. I think you are over-analyzing it.

So, sugarfree, it is safe for me to say you're a Lutheran? After all, Christian is Christian, and Jew is Jew, right?

What about Jehovah's Witness? Last time I checked, they use the Bible and believe in Jesus. So you're a Jehovah's Witness.

Quote:
What does this question have to do with Jesus? This, I find is a common theme with you. It seems you analyze things into oblivion so that no truth will ever satisfy you. Jesus was a Jew. I believe that’s all that is needed for this argument.

Ok, sugarfree. You're right. It's overanalyzed. You believe that 144,000 people are going to heaven, and that's it. It's ok for me to say this because any old Bible based theology will work. Analysis for truth is a bad thing. Who cares whether it's what you believe or not. I'm not interested in knowing the truth, because it's enough that you believe in the Bible.

Quote:
Muhammed may have borrowed from Christianity/Judaism. That does not make the two theologies one in the same. In fact, they are quite different.

You think? You mean by looking at the texts, you see similarities, and it occurs to you that the later writer (Muhammed) borrowed from the earlier writers? What a profound revelation you've had! I wonder why it never occurred to you that other writers (NT) might have borrowed from previous writers (OT). Seems obvious to me. The puzzle is why they didn't do a better job of matching them... Why would that be, I wonder...

Quote:
So why are Jews and Christains considered infidels, unclean, etc. by many in the Islamic faith?

Damn good question, you Jehovah's Witness, you! Good thing you're not one of those Catholics who's going to burn in hell for praying to Mary...

Quote:
Here’s an analogy. When an ancient text is translated, is the translation more trustworthy if one scholar does all the translating, or if a team of scholars does the translating?

That's a rotten analogy. We're talking about authorship, not translation.

Quote:
I, personally, would place my bet with the team because they act as checks and balances to one another, keep each other in line, are available to each other for questioning in order to work out the more complex problems, etc.

So, logically, the bible would be more trustworthy if ten or twelve people had authored each book of the bible, since the original point you were trying to refute dealt with the bible having many books with different authors.

You need someone to teach you how to make a proper analogy.

Quote:
Well, I think, ultimately, this is a decision you would have to make for yourself.

I can't decide if you're being intentionally obtuse, or whether you just can't see the point. Sugarfree, if everyone has to make the decision for themselves, then there's no right answer. Is there an objectively true version? If so, what is it? How do you know? If you know "in your heart," how is it objective, since everyone else knows in their heart, too? Are you better than them?

Quote:
I disagree when you say the denominations of Christianity are incompatible.

That's why it's ok for me to call you a JW.

Quote:
But, the important truth, that Jesus was God incarnate, is the over-arching message that is shared by all, except possibly the fringe liberal left

Right. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that, and you better not say they're fringe left, or I'll know you're just ignorant.

Quote:
The objective standard is the New Testament.

So your church doesn't let women speak in church, right? The NT objectively says women should not speak in church.

Hypocrite.

Quote:
Nothing more and nothing less.

Ok. Live up to your words! Women should shut the hell up in church.

Quote:
I think you are getting too caught up in the denominations. I doubt Jesus would approve of them either. They are a human invention.

Excellent observation. They are human inventions.

Quote:
With Christianity, you should always use your brain and read the NT rather than following some man-made standard.

Again, excellent observation!

My brain tells me, after thoroughly reading the OT, NT, and gads of history, that the bible, like the talmud, torah, koran, and every other god-book ever written, is a man-made entity, describing a made up fantasy sky daddy, who happens, in the case of Judeo-Christianity, to be a petulant narcissist who really loves blood.

Why do you believe it? Because you feel it in your heart?

Or... brain... which was it again that you're supposed to use?

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: So,

Hambydammit wrote:
So, sugarfree, it is safe for me to say you’re a Lutheran? After all, Christian is Christian, and Jew is Jew, right? What about Jehovah’s Witness? Last time I checked, they use the Bible and believe in Jesus. So you’re a Jehovah’s Witness.
I believe we both know you are playing games with me on the whole Jehovah’s Witness thing. But, if you wish, I will take any label you would like to apply.

Hambydammit wrote:
Ok, sugarfree. You’re right. It’s overanalyzed. You believe that 144,000 people are going to heaven, and that’s it.
I said that? I must have missed that part.

Hambydammit wrote:
It’s ok for me to say this because any old Bible based theology will work. Analysis for truth is a bad thing.
Analysis can be quite fruitful. Over-analysis, however, is often not helpful.

Hambydammit wrote:
Who cares whether it’s what you believe or not. I’m not interested in knowing the truth, because it’s enough that you believe in the Bible.
I don’t believe I said this either

Hambydammit wrote:
You think? You mean by looking at the texts, you see similarities, and it occurs to you that the later writer (Muhammed) borrowed from the earlier writers?
I have never read the entire Koran. However the parts I’ve read do not bear much resemblance to the Bible at all. He may mention a few of the same names, but on the whole, that does not amount to much.

Hambydammit wrote:
What a profound revelation you’ve had!
Thanks!

Hambydammit wrote:
I wonder why it never occurred to you that other writers (NT) might have borrowed from previous writers (OT).
Well, certainly since they were Jews they were influenced by Jewish beliefs which in turn affected their writing.

Hambydammit wrote:
So why are Jews and Christains considered infidels, unclean, etc. by many in the Islamic faith?Damn good question, you Jehovah’s Witness, you!
Thanks!

Hambydammit wrote:
Good thing you’re not one of those Catholics who’s going to burn in hell for praying to Mary...
They are? I didn’t know that. Uh oh, I better warn tell my Catholic friends.

Hambydammit wrote:
That’s a rotten analogy. We’re talking about authorship, not translation.
Not if you consider the OT writers were translating for God. Imagine if a cave man was transported to present time for a day, then was transported back and tried to tell all his cave mates about it? Could be kind of difficult and he might have to try different (literary) techniques to try and get his point across. If one of his ape friends went with him it would be even better because then his cave mates would have the benefit of two points of view.

Hambydammit wrote:
You need someone to teach you how to make a proper analogy.
Geez, now you’re just getting personal.

Hambydammit wrote:
Sugarfree, if everyone has to make the decision for themselves, then there’s no right answer. Is there an objectively true version?
Well, yeah, God’s. That’s why we continually seek him, pour over and consider his words, apply his words to our life, surround ourselves with Christians who will hold us accountable, pray for clarity and guidance, etc.

Hambydammit wrote:
I disagree when you say the denominations of Christianity are incompatible.

That’s why it’s ok for me to call you a JW.

Bring it on.

Hambydammit wrote:
Right. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that, and you better not say they’re fringe left, or I’ll know you’re just ignorant.
Now you are just playing mind games, Hamby. I mistakenly assumed you were here in search of truth.

Hambydammit wrote:
So your church doesn’t let women speak in church, right? The NT objectively says women should not speak in church. Hypocrite.
Hamby, I think you should take some Bible classes at your local Bible college, then come back. I will be more than willing to discuss NT scriptures with you then.

Hambydammit wrote:
Again, excellent observation! My brain tells me, after thoroughly reading the OT, NT, and gads of history, that the bible, like the talmud, torah, koran, and every other god-book ever written, is a man-made entity, describing a made up fantasy sky daddy, who happens, in the case of Judeo-Christianity, to be a petulant narcissist who really loves blood.
Why do you think man is constantly searching for answers? If you deny your spiritual side, you will not be a whole person, Hamby, whether you like it or not. Neither you nor I get to make up the rules.


HumanisticJones
HumanisticJones's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:
So your church doesn’t let women speak in church, right? The NT objectively says women should not speak in church. Hypocrite.
Hamby, I think you should take some Bible classes at your local Bible college, then come back. I will be more than willing to discuss NT scriptures with you then. 

But it very clearly said so in the NT that women shouldn't speak in church.  Right here in 1 Corinthians 14:34-37

14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

 So not only is Paul letting people know that women shouldn't speak in church, but that Jesus commands that women not speak in church.

The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.


JHenson
Theist
Posts: 112
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Quote: By your statement

Quote:
By your statement that "Jews ought to think Christians are as heretical as Islamics think Jews are", are you asserting that the term judeo-christian is inappropriate, or ought still to be used?

I think the term is inappropriate as it is applied to religious doctrines.  One could refer to the "Judeo-Christio-Islamic God" and be correct, as all three acknowledge they refer to the same God.  You could also use the term demographically, if for some reason the demographic you were studying should lump all three together.  Other than that, it seems an over-generalization to me.

And your clarification on the Islamic belief of the Qu'ran's origins is accurate, thank you. 

"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
HumanisticJones wrote: But

HumanisticJones wrote:
But it very clearly said so in the NT that women shouldn't speak in church.  Right here in 1 Corinthians 14:34-37

14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

 So not only is Paul letting people know that women shouldn't speak in church, but that Jesus commands that women not speak in church.

You are reading the scripture out of it's historical context, which is why, if you truly want to understand the Bible, you must understand the culture in which it was written. If you read it solely against the backdrop of contemporary culture, you will come to these types of false conclusions. It takes a little extra effort, but it is worth it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
HumanisticJones wrote:
But it very clearly said so in the NT that women shouldn't speak in church. Right here in 1 Corinthians 14:34-37

 

14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

So not only is Paul letting people know that women shouldn't speak in church, but that Jesus commands that women not speak in church.

You are reading the scripture out of it's historical context, which is why, if you truly want to understand the Bible, you must understand the culture in which it was written. If you read it solely against the backdrop of contemporary culture, you will come to these types of false conclusions. It takes a little extra effort, but it is worth it.

 ...and here I thought that the words of your God were supposed to be timeless/eternal.  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Wow, sugarfree. You

Wow, sugarfree. You managed to produce non-answers to every single point I made. All that writing, and not one rebuttal.

Actually, sugar, I wasn't playing mind games with you about the JWs. I was using your logic on you to show you how absurd your ideas are. The exact same logic you use to flippantly dismiss different sects of Judaism is used against you to justify any and all sects that use the Bible.

Since they are all interchangable, according to your logic, then it is quite fair for me to assume you believe what the JW's believe. In fact, I could mix and match, and it would be ok, because it's not important. It would be overanalyzing.

Don't you see, sugarfree? If I use your method of approaching Judaism, I can say that you said all those things, even though you didn't. That's why your method is flawed. This is a common technique in logic, by the way. You can refute bad logic by taking it to its normal conclusion. When the conclusion and reality don't match, you know your logic was bad.

Sugarfree, I'm not trying to be mean when I say this. Not only have I studied the bible thoroughly, not only have I read more apologetics than most Christians, I also have studied logic, argument, and rhetoric, so I can say this as somewhat of an authority: You need to learn the difference between naysaying and argument.

What you have done is simply say, "No, hamby, you're wrong."

Well, that's just not very convincing. What I did was use a valid logical construct to prove your logic to be flawed. If you wish to continue the discussion, you'll have to show me where I made a logical error. If you can't do that, then my point stands unrefuted.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:
Ok, sugarfree. You’re right. It’s overanalyzed. You believe that 144,000 people are going to heaven, and that’s it.
I said that? I must have missed that part.

Some christians believe that only 144,000 people will go to heaven at the time of the rapture. You said that christian denominations are compatible, and you said you were a christian. Therefore, as a christian, you do accept the aforementioned christian belief. How could you have possibly missed that?

sugarfree wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:
It’s ok for me to say this because any old Bible based theology will work. Analysis for truth is a bad thing.
Analysis can be quite fruitful. Over-analysis, however, is often not helpful.

And at what point does fruitful analysis become over-analysis? At the point your beliefs fail to hold up to scrutiny?

sugarfree wrote:
So why are Jews and Christains considered infidels, unclean, etc. by many in the Islamic faith?

Do some christians not consider muslims infidels? Do some christians not consider jews infidels for having rejected their messiah? Do not some christians consider other christians infidels? (Recall Martin Luther's nickname for the pope, if you will.)

sugarfree wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:
You need someone to teach you how to make a proper analogy.
Geez, now you’re just getting personal.

You accused me of "overanalysis". Who hath cast the first stone?

sugarfree wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:
Sugarfree, if everyone has to make the decision for themselves, then there’s no right answer. Is there an objectively true version?
Well, yeah, God’s. That’s why we continually seek him, pour over and consider his words, apply his words to our life, surround ourselves with Christians who will hold us accountable, pray for clarity and guidance, etc.

We have been seeking and poring over and considering for 2,000 years. As the 30,000+ different denominations of christianity would attest, this clarity is yet to arrive.

sugarfree wrote:
I disagree when you say the denominations of Christianity are incompatible.

Very well. What is the christian stance on Genesis - historical truth, or symbolic? What is the christian stance on the eucharist -- does bread and wine actually turn into jesus' flesh & blood, or is it only ceremonial? What is the christian stance on the pope? On the trinity? On praying to Mary? On birth control? On homosexuality (bear in mind the recent vote by episcopalian christians)? On speaking in tongues?

sugarfree wrote:
Hamby, I think you should take some Bible classes at your local Bible college, then come back. I will be more than willing to discuss NT scriptures with you then.

You admitted above that you had not read the qu'ran all the way through. Perhaps you should do so (and maybe take some classes at your local qu'ranic college -- and if time allows, some Talmudic classes at the local yeshiva) before commenting further on islam.

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
JHenson wrote: I think the

JHenson wrote:

I think the term is inappropriate as it is applied to religious doctrines. One could refer to the "Judeo-Christio-Islamic God" and be correct, as all three acknowledge they refer to the same God. You could also use the term demographically, if for some reason the demographic you were studying should lump all three together. Other than that, it seems an over-generalization to me.

I think we may very well be in agreement here.  My primary objection is to its use by politicians.  It's a meaningless catch-all phrase that most americans find resonance with when they hear it -- although they differ widely on the details of their denominational beliefs.  The claim that this country was founded on "judeo-christian" values is an absolute canard - in no small part due to the fact that noone knows what "judeo-christian" means. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I was

Hambydammit wrote:
I was using your logic on you to show you how absurd your ideas are.

That's the same thing I did, but he ignored my post.  I'm guessing he didn't realise the point I was getting across of how stupid it is to compare something that happens once an existance to something that happens multiple times a day then saying the first can't be true because he's never seen it in his lifetime.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: ...and

jcgadfly wrote:

...and here I thought that the words of your God were supposed to be timeless/eternal.

Yes, you read and understand it within it's historical context in order to extract the timeless truth, which can be applied to any generation past or future.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Some

zarathustra wrote:

Some christians believe that only 144,000 people will go to heaven at the time of the rapture. You said that christian denominations are compatible, and you said you were a christian. Therefore, as a christian, you do accept the aforementioned christian belief. How could you have possibly missed that?

No, I do not believe this. Which scripture is it? I can look into it and check back.

zarathustra wrote:

And at what point does fruitful analysis become over-analysis? At the point your beliefs fail to hold up to scrutiny?

At the point where you confuse yourself so badly that you are unable to see any truth.

zarathustra wrote:

Do some christians not consider muslims infidels? Do some christians not consider jews infidels for having rejected their messiah? Do not some christians consider other christians infidels? (Recall Martin Luther's nickname for the pope, if you will.)

None that I know. None that I know...and....none that I know. I consider Muslims my equal under God, I have great respect for Jews, and, well, I've never considered anyone to be an infidel for that matter.

zarathustra wrote:

You accused me of "overanalysis". Who hath cast the first stone?

I said this not to judge, but out of care, because I have spent plenty of time in a spiral of overanalysis.

zarathustra wrote:

We have been seeking and poring over and considering for 2,000 years. As the 30,000+ different denominations of christianity would attest, this clarity is yet to arrive.

On the contrary, it is very clear to me what Jesus did for me on the cross, and I think it is awe inspiring and wonderful.

zarathustra wrote:

Very well. What is the christian stance on Genesis - historical truth, or symbolic? What is the christian stance on the eucharist -- does bread and wine actually turn into jesus' flesh & blood, or is it only ceremonial? What is the christian stance on the pope? On the trinity? On praying to Mary? On birth control? On homosexuality (bear in mind the recent vote by episcopalian christians)? On speaking in tongues?

I can tell you what I think on all these issues:

What is the christian stance on Genesis - historical truth, or symbolic? Both

What is the christian stance on the eucharist -- does bread and wine actually turn into jesus' flesh & blood, or is it only ceremonial? It is only ceremonial to remind us of the sacrifice.

What is the christian stance on the pope? He's a Christian that lives in a fancy palace in Europe somewhere

On the trinity? God in three persons, father son and holy ghost.

On praying to Mary? I don't do it.

On birth control? I'd suggest it if you don't want to have a litter of kids.

On homosexuality (bear in mind the recent vote by episcopalian christians)? Sometimes genetic, sometimes environmental... Often it falls in the category of sin, but is no more or less a sin than any other.

On speaking in tongues? I don't do it.

zarathustra wrote:

You admitted above that you had not read the qu'ran all the way through. Perhaps you should do so (and maybe take some classes at your local qu'ranic college -- and if time allows, some Talmudic classes at the local yeshiva) before commenting further on islam.

Well, if I wanted to perform serious criticism of the Koran, I might, however, I don't wish to do that, so I will only comment on what I know from the studies I have done.

 


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Actually, sugar, I wasn't playing mind games with you about the JWs. I was using your logic on you to show you how absurd your ideas are.

If you made an honest study of Christianity yourself, I trust you would be able to wade your way thru the denominations, and to be able to identify fringe cults from the mainstream, so why should we go thru this little game of back and forth when we both know that is the case?

Hambydammit wrote:

Since they are all interchangable, according to your logic, then it is quite fair for me to assume you believe what the JW's believe. In fact, I could mix and match, and it would be ok, because it's not important. It would be overanalyzing.

Again, Hamby, I can tell you are intelligent enough to know that JW's beliefs are different than most others.

Hambydammit wrote:

Sugarfree, I'm not trying to be mean when I say this. Not only have I studied the bible thoroughly, not only have I read more apologetics than most Christians, I also have studied logic, argument, and rhetoric, so I can say this as somewhat of an authority: You need to learn the difference between naysaying and argument.

Well, then you are above me in that area Hamby, so why am I bothering to try to debate you? This is a wasted exercise for both of us.

Hambydammit wrote:

Well, that's just not very convincing. What I did was use a valid logical construct to prove your logic to be flawed. If you wish to continue the discussion, you'll have to show me where I made a logical error. If you can't do that, then my point stands unrefuted.

Okay, put one in the win column for you, because I do not have the time nor the desire to catch up with all your reading.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: I've never

sugarfree wrote:
I've never considered anyone to be an infidel for that matter.
Do you think all religious faiths are equally alike?

infidel

–noun

1. Religion.
a. a person who does not accept a particular faith, esp. Christianity.
b. (in Christian use) an unbeliever, esp. a Muslim.
c. (in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kaffir.
2. a person who has no religious faith; unbeliever.
3. (loosely) a person who disbelieves or doubts a particular theory, belief, creed, etc.; skeptic.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Stoping thinking so much.

Stoping thinking so much. Remember, Sugarfree is only nominally a Christian. Her philosophy is WHATEVER plus Jesus portrayed as a big yellow smiley face.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
zarathustra wrote:


Some christians believe that only 144,000 people will go to heaven at the time of the rapture....
No, I do not believe this. Which scripture is it? I can look into it and check back.


It doesn't matter where in scripture it is. There are christians who believe in it, and you yourself said that christian denominations are compatible. So do you accept this christian belief in the 144,000, or do you wish to backtrack on you claim of compatibility among denominations?

sugarfree wrote:


zarathustra wrote:


And at what point does fruitful analysis become over-analysis? At the point your beliefs fail to hold up to scrutiny?
At the point where you confuse yourself so badly that you are unable to see any truth.


As far as christianity goes, there are thousands of different versions of "the truth". Who would you say is confused?

sugarfree wrote:


zarathustra wrote:


Do some christians not consider muslims infidels? Do some christians not consider jews infidels for having rejected their messiah? Do not some christians consider other christians infidels? (Recall Martin Luther's nickname for the pope, if you will.)
None that I know. None that I know...and....none that I know. I consider Muslims my equal under God, I have great respect for Jews, and, well, I've never considered anyone to be an infidel for that matter.


Good for you, but your opinion differs from other "christians" out there.

sugarfree wrote:


Quote:
What is the christian stance on Genesis - historical truth, or symbolic?
Both


I did not realize that was possible. Care to explain?

sugarfree wrote:


Quote:
What is the christian stance on the eucharist -- does bread and wine actually turn into jesus' flesh & blood, or is it only ceremonial?
It is only ceremonial to remind us of the sacrifice.


Nearly a billion catholic christians disagree with you.

sugarfree wrote:


Quote:
What is the christian stance on the pope?
He's a Christian that lives in a fancy palace in Europe somewhere


But is he the infallible mouthpiece of god, as nearly a billion catholic christians claim? Or is he the antichrist as the protestant christian Martin Luther claimed?

sugarfree wrote:


Quote:
On the trinity?
God in three persons, father son and holy ghost.



Jehova's Witness christians disagree with you.

sugarfree wrote:


Quote:
On praying to Mary?
I don't do it.
Again, you're out of line with the catholic christians.

sugarfree wrote:


Quote:
On birth control?
I'd suggest it if you don't want to have a litter of kids.


catholics again. I'm beginning to wonder if those catholics count as christians in your book.

sugarfree wrote:


Quote:
On homosexuality (bear in mind the recent vote by episcopalian christians)?
Sometimes genetic, sometimes environmental... Often it falls in the category of sin, but is no more or less a sin than any other.


Now you're disagreeing with the christian Fred Phelps of westboro baptist church, who thinks homosexuals will burn in hell, and blames the 9/11 attacks on them. And as far as "no more or less a sin than any other" -- there go those pesky catholic christians with their dichotomy of venal and mortal sin.

sugarfree wrote:


On speaking in tongues? I don't do it.


Pentecostal christians do. I won't bother bringing up snake-handling and drinking strychnine (although it is in the NT...) But I guess catholics, jehovah's witnesses, lutherans, episcopals, westboro baptists, pentecostals and your denomination are all compatible since, they're all christian.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
What is real BAPTIST christianity?

Here is an article from today's paper about infighting in the baptist church.

How can we hope to arrive at a standard definition of "christian", when they cannot even agree on a standard definition of "baptist"?  

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If you made an

Quote:
If you made an honest study of Christianity yourself, I trust you would be able to wade your way thru the denominations, and to be able to identify fringe cults from the mainstream, so why should we go thru this little game of back and forth when we both know that is the case?

No true Scotsman. Look it up under logical fallacies. Check Here for a great compilation of the most common ones. You should recognize a lot of them from your own writing.

Quote:
Again, Hamby, I can tell you are intelligent enough to know that JW's beliefs are different than most others.

You're able to make such astute observations sometimes. Why can you not find the mote in your own eye?

Quote:
Well, then you are above me in that area Hamby, so why am I bothering to try to debate you? This is a wasted exercise for both of us.

I'm not sure. Most people, desiring knowledge, would accept defeat gracefully and attempt to increase their own knowledge. I suspect it is a waste for both of us since you will most likely not do this.

Quote:
Okay, put one in the win column for you, because I do not have the time nor the desire to catch up with all your reading.

Thank you very much for the concession. At least you realize when you are defeated. Perhaps you will reexamine your irrational beliefs in light of your defeat.

Probably not.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
judeo-islamic-christian or

judeo-islamic-christian or abrahamic religions can also be understood in contrast to dharmic religions and taoic religions.

(for exampleSmiling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmic_religions

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: sugarfree

AiiA wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
I've never considered anyone to be an infidel for that matter.
Do you think all religious faiths are equally alike?

  

I understand see you are trying to trap me.  Would you like to light up my torch, run after you screaming "infidel?"  It's not going to happen. 

 Infidel obviously has a negative connotation, outside of what can be expressed in a meriam-webster definition.  Given it's negative connotations, which do not fit my character, nor the character of the the Christians I know (or anyone else I know for that matter), I do not use the word, nor condone the use of it.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Stoping

magilum wrote:
Stoping thinking so much. Remember, Sugarfree is only nominally a Christian. Her philosophy is WHATEVER plus Jesus portrayed as a big yellow smiley face.
Magilum, why can't we try to understand each other on civil terms?


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

It doesn't matter where in scripture it is. There are christians who believe in it, and you yourself said that christian denominations are compatible. So do you accept this christian belief in the 144,000, or do you wish to backtrack on you claim of compatibility among denominations?

No, I don't need to back track because I said there is compatibility on the issue that matters, that is that Jesus Christ is our savior.

 

zarathustra wrote:

And at what point does fruitful analysis become over-analysis? At the point your beliefs fail to hold up to scrutiny? At the point where you confuse yourself so badly that you are unable to see any truth.

Again, the issue that matters most here is the issue of who Jesus Christ is. I know you do not get that, but I will keep repeating it.

 

zarathustra wrote:

Good for you, but your opinion differs from other "christians" out there.

I cannot control other Christians, only myself. I would suggest trying to forgive those you feel have wronged you, that includes Christians if they fall in that category.

 

zarathustra wrote:

I did not realize that was possible. Care to explain?

I have explained it before on this site. The truth can be explained in a way that makes it easier for baby human minds (i.e., the monkeys we once were) to understand.

 

 

zarathustra wrote:

Nearly a billion catholic christians disagree with you.

I don't care if they disagree on that. We agree on the subject of Jesus and who he was, which is the important part.

 

zarathustra wrote:

But is he the infallible mouthpiece of god, as nearly a billion catholic christians claim? Or is he the antichrist as the protestant christian Martin Luther claimed?

I disagree with them on this issue, however, see above.

 

zarathustra wrote:

Jehova's Witness christians disagree with you.

Which, like Mormons, makes them non-Christians, a fact that is widely acknowledged in the Christian community.

 

zarathustra wrote:

On praying to Mary? I don't do it. Again, you're out of line with the catholic christians.

Again, Jesus.

 

zarathustra wrote:

catholics again. I'm beginning to wonder if those catholics count as christians in your book.

Yes. The Jesus thing.

 

zarathustra wrote:

Now you're disagreeing with the christian Fred Phelps of westboro baptist church, who thinks homosexuals will burn in hell, and blames the 9/11 attacks on them. And as far as "no more or less a sin than any other" -- there go those pesky catholic christians with their dichotomy of venal and mortal sin.

It doesn't matter if I agree with Fred Phelps, it matters that I fully accept Jesus.

 

zarathustra wrote:

Pentecostal christians do. I won't bother bringing up snake-handling and drinking strychnine (although it is in the NT...) But I guess catholics, jehovah's witnesses, lutherans, episcopals, westboro baptists, pentecostals and your denomination are all compatible since, they're all christian.

Excluding Jehovah's Witnesses, yes, there's that whole Jesus thing again. You are trying to trap me with the westboro baptists. I do not know much about them, God will judge the members of the church, but as far as the baptist denomination, they believe in Jesus as the savior of man.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
If you made an honest study of Christianity yourself, I trust you would be able to wade your way thru the denominations, and to be able to identify fringe cults from the mainstream, so why should we go thru this little game of back and forth when we both know that is the case?

No true Scotsman. Look it up under logical fallacies. Check Here for a great compilation of the most common ones. You should recognize a lot of them from your own writing.

Quote:
Again, Hamby, I can tell you are intelligent enough to know that JW's beliefs are different than most others.

You're able to make such astute observations sometimes. Why can you not find the mote in your own eye?

Quote:
Well, then you are above me in that area Hamby, so why am I bothering to try to debate you? This is a wasted exercise for both of us.

I'm not sure. Most people, desiring knowledge, would accept defeat gracefully and attempt to increase their own knowledge. I suspect it is a waste for both of us since you will most likely not do this.

Quote:
Okay, put one in the win column for you, because I do not have the time nor the desire to catch up with all your reading.

Thank you very much for the concession. At least you realize when you are defeated. Perhaps you will reexamine your irrational beliefs in light of your defeat.

Probably not.

The bottom line for me is this.  Do I want to spend my time filling my head with knowledge, or do I want to spend my time learning how to become more like the person of Jesus, who was selfless, loving, wise, just.  It's about who I want to be as a person. I do not admire men for their knowledge, I admire them for how they treat others, and how they are able to humble themselves in this life.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: jcgadfly

sugarfree wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

...and here I thought that the words of your God were supposed to be timeless/eternal.

Yes, you read and understand it within it's historical context in order to extract the timeless truth, which can be applied to any generation past or future.

 So you read 1 Cor 14:34-37 and add the historical context (the male dominated society of the time the church began, the same sort of society that existed during the writing of all the versions of scripture) and guess what? It says exactly the same thing!

 Is having women remain silent in church and get their knowledge from their husbands the timeless truth that you wanted to find?

 Then again, Paul was great at selective applications of the "Law".

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
If you made an honest study of Christianity yourself, I trust you would be able to wade your way thru the denominations, and to be able to identify fringe cults from the mainstream, so why should we go thru this little game of back and forth when we both know that is the case?

No true Scotsman. Look it up under logical fallacies. Check Here for a great compilation of the most common ones. You should recognize a lot of them from your own writing.

Quote:
Again, Hamby, I can tell you are intelligent enough to know that JW's beliefs are different than most others.

You're able to make such astute observations sometimes. Why can you not find the mote in your own eye?

Quote:
Well, then you are above me in that area Hamby, so why am I bothering to try to debate you? This is a wasted exercise for both of us.

I'm not sure. Most people, desiring knowledge, would accept defeat gracefully and attempt to increase their own knowledge. I suspect it is a waste for both of us since you will most likely not do this.

Quote:
Okay, put one in the win column for you, because I do not have the time nor the desire to catch up with all your reading.

Thank you very much for the concession. At least you realize when you are defeated. Perhaps you will reexamine your irrational beliefs in light of your defeat.

Probably not.

The bottom line for me is this. Do I want to spend my time filling my head with knowledge, or do I want to spend my time learning how to become more like the person of Jesus, who was selfless, loving, wise, just. It's about who I want to be as a person. I do not admire men for their knowledge, I admire them for how they treat others, and how they are able to humble themselves in this life.

 

 

Did you just say in your bottom line that you have to be stupid in order to be more like Jesus? 

Incidentally, I don't need Jesus to be nice to other people. I've seen Christianity interfere with charitable acts far more than I've seen it trigger them.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Sorry about the big blank

Sorry about the big blank posts. I'm not sure what's causing it. If anyone knows, let me know. They seem to happen when I am at home, posting via Firefox?


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
JCG, here is my response to

JCG, here is my response to your Corinthians inquiry...

Common feminist thought says men and women are equal, and it stops there. The Bible expresses that men and women are equal before God, yet they are intrinsically different in many ways. The Bible defines certain roles for men and women, which often angers feminists. However, God understands the differing nature of men and woman, which is why he defined different roles for us. The woman is to submit to her husband, HOWEVER, it is expected that the man is a Godly man who loves his wife like Christ loved the church. In other words, he must love her to the point where he is willing to die for her. If you ask me, the women get the easier end of the deal there. Some people argue that this scripture means, women are expected to submit to cruel men who beat them. This is a misunderstanding of scripture, and can happen if you single out one scripture and read it without consideration of the rest of the Bible.

This scripture you are talking about in Corinthians should be read within the context I just described. At that time in society, men did have more power than women. Christianity did not cause this, it is just a historical fact of the time...and there was most likely a cultural expectation that women should let their husbands do the talking. Perhaps anything less was considered disrespectful to the man, i.e., was evidence that she was not in submission to him.

Nowadays, our society doesn't have rules like that. Women talk over their husbands all the time and it is culturally accepted. However, this passage has taught me that sometimes I do in fact need to shut-up and let my husband do the talking, because of the simple fact that it reinforces his manhood. It is immasculating for me to interrupt him, to talk for him, to never give him the chance to lead our family. I need to let him be a man instead of trying to be the man and the woman in the relationship.

It could also be considered that scriptures say women are not to teach men regarding spiritual matters. Why? Well, they have are harder job than we women do. They are responsible to us, to the point where they need to be willing to sacrifice their own lives for us. A woman is not called by God to die for her husband, so a woman isn’t as well-suited to teach a man about this. Notice I said, “well-suited”. It is not that she is not suited for it, or that she cannot, the man is just better suited for it because he himself bears the responsibility of offering himself up as a sacrifice for his wife.

Lastly, the Bible gives this model to us (wives submit to your husbands, husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church) as an ideal to strive for. We are imperfect creatures and will not always, if ever, hit his mark. But in the trying, we will become better, more well-rounded people.

From my own personal experience, I can’t tell you how many times I have cursed the feminist movement, because here I am at work, day in and day out, doing my best to maintain my health despite the stress (no wonder men have traditionally died earlier than women), when what I’d rather do is raise a family. The way things are for me (because I bought into the feminist model, and affectively painted myself into a corner), I am stuck shipping my kids off to daycare (if I even decide to have any) instead of raising them myself…which, just…is so wrong to me… So, my experience has taught me that yes, men and women are in fact different. We process the world differntly, we have different desires, and the whole feminist movement…it can kiss my butt. Well, not entirely, but the pendulum has swung too far to one side, and I believe it needs to find it’s way back to the middle.

So, there you go. A Biblical scholar could explain it much better, but I have tried to explain my understanding of that scripture to the best of my ability, and to model the kind of thought processes that go into applying scripture to present day life.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: JCG, here

sugarfree wrote:
JCG, here is my response to your Corinthians inquiry... Common feminist thought says men and women are equal, and it stops there. The Bible expresses that men and women are equal before God, yet they are intrinsically different in many ways. The Bible defines certain roles for men and women, which often angers feminists. However, God understands the differing nature of men and woman, which is why he defined different roles for us. The woman is to submit to her husband, HOWEVER, it is expected that the man is a Godly man who loves his wife like Christ loved the church. In other words, he must love her to the point where he is willing to die for her. If you ask me, the women get the easier end of the deal there. Some people argue that this scripture means, women are expected to submit to cruel men who beat them. This is a misunderstanding of scripture, and can happen if you single out one scripture and read it without consideration of the rest of the Bible. This scripture you are talking about in Corinthians should be read within the context I just described. At that time in society, men did have more power than women. Christianity did not cause this, it is just a historical fact of the time...and there was most likely a cultural expectation that women should let their husbands do the talking. Perhaps anything less was considered disrespectful to the man, i.e., was evidence that she was not in submission to him. Nowadays, our society doesn't have rules like that. Women talk over their husbands all the time and it is culturally accepted. However, this passage has taught me that sometimes I do in fact need to shut-up and let my husband do the talking, because of the simple fact that it reinforces his manhood. It is immasculating for me to interrupt him, to talk for him, to never give him the chance to lead our family. I need to let him be a man instead of trying to be the man and the woman in the relationship. It could also be considered that scriptures say women are not to teach men regarding spiritual matters. Why? Well, they have are harder job than we women do. They are responsible to us, to the point where they need to be willing to sacrifice their own lives for us. A woman is not called by God to die for her husband, so a woman isn’t as well-suited to teach a man about this. Notice I said, “well-suited”. It is not that she is not suited for it, or that she cannot, the man is just better suited for it because he himself bears the responsibility of offering himself up as a sacrifice for his wife. Lastly, the Bible gives this model to us (wives submit to your husbands, husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church) as an ideal to strive for. We are imperfect creatures and will not always, if ever, hit his mark. But in the trying, we will become better, more well-rounded people. From my own personal experience, I can’t tell you how many times I have cursed the feminist movement, because here I am at work, day in and day out, doing my best to maintain my health despite the stress (no wonder men have traditionally died earlier than women), when what I’d rather do is raise a family. The way things are for me (because I bought into the feminist model, and affectively painted myself into a corner), I am stuck shipping my kids off to daycare (if I even decide to have any) instead of raising them myself…which, just…is so wrong to me… So, my experience has taught me that yes, men and women are in fact different. We process the world differntly, we have different desires, and the whole feminist movement…it can kiss my butt. Well, not entirely, but the pendulum has swung too far to one side, and I believe it needs to find it’s way back to the middle. So, there you go. A Biblical scholar could explain it much better, but I have tried to explain my understanding of that scripture to the best of my ability, and to model the kind of thought processes that go into applying scripture to present day life.

 So there is some Scripture that has no eternal truth and is only relevant to the culture it was written in?

Given that sort of relativism, can any Scripture be taken at face value? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
AiiA wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
I've never considered anyone to be an infidel for that matter.
Do you think all religious faiths are equally alike?
I understand see you are trying to trap me.
Are you being just a bit paranoid? I'm only trying to correct your error on the usage of the word 'infidel'. If we have different meanings for the words we use in a discussion how are we going to understand one another? I define 'infidel' according to the dictionary but appearantly you are using a different source.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:


zarathustra wrote:

Jehova's Witness christians disagree with you.
Which, like Mormons, makes them non-Christians, a fact that is widely acknowledged in the Christian community.

which people who call themselves christians make up the "christian community"?

which people who call themselves christians do not?

how do you know? these are issues which are confusing to non-christians, esp. those who are not raised in this narrative tradition.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
From my own personal experience, I can’t tell you how many times I have cursed the feminist movement, because here I am at work, day in and day out, doing my best to maintain my health despite the stress (no wonder men have traditionally died earlier than women), when what I’d rather do is raise a family. The way things are for me (because I bought into the feminist model, and affectively painted myself into a corner), I am stuck shipping my kids off to daycare (if I even decide to have any) instead of raising them myself…which, just…is so wrong to me… So, my experience has taught me that yes, men and women are in fact different. We process the world differntly, we have different desires, and the whole feminist movement…it can kiss my butt. Well, not entirely, but the pendulum has swung too far to one side, and I believe it needs to find it’s way back to the middle.

Sorry to veer off-topic, but...

Are you blaming the feminist movement for your current employment? It's not like you don't have a choice. Why don't you move back in with your parents and quit your job until you meet some nice man to marry? What's forcing you to work? If it's purely an income issue, don't you think that has more to do with the economy than the radical idea that women are people, too?

-Triften

*EDIT - Typo* 


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
On this idea of women

On this idea of women working...

"what I’d rather do is raise a family"

There are men who would let you do that, find them.

"men and women are in fact different"

That is too easy to be a smart ass, but I'm trying to be nice... To a point men and women are different, but you should ask yourself why this seems to be the case.

"the pendulum has swung too far to one side, and I believe it needs to find it’s way back to the middle"

No, I'm pretty sure this is about middle. I say about because there is still some bullshit going on (on both "sides&quotEye-wink.

"In simple terms, feminism is a belief in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes, and a movement organized around the conviction that biological sex should not be the pre-determinant factor shaping a person's social identity or socio-political or economic rights." (wiki because I am lazy) In that sense I would bet a lot of money you still think equality would be a good thing.

"[Critics] claim that feminists - in their struggle for what they call equality - seem to be unwilling to pay any attention to areas where men may be discriminated against." (wiki because I'm still lazy) If that is what you mean by feminism then that seems to throw that whole equality thing out the window.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: which people

mouse wrote:
which people who call themselves christians make up the "christian community"?

which people who call themselves christians do not?

how do you know? these are issues which are confusing to non-christians, esp. those who are not raised in this narrative tradition.

Christian community is defined by those who follow the bible based on the original greek & hebrew manuscripts as translated thougout history.  JW's have a book that has been mistranslated ON PURPOSE and though that doctrine has gone against Christian based practices (for example, the intentional mistranslation of the word "spirit" to "active force&quotEye-wink.  Their book, the New World Translation, along with their C&C structure (my term) called the Watch Tower, are not accepted as Christian based on their translation to which has been proven to be incorrect based on the original G/H texts.

Mormon has the exact same issues along with some really wild ideas about after life and the direct contradiction as to how Joseph Smith received his "Book of Mormon" and how the bible states how God approaches people (along with others who know what God does to bring the word to you directly).

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Christian community is defined by those who follow the bible based on the original greek & hebrew manuscripts as translated thougout history.

The "original greek & hebrew manuscripts" have been translated multiple times "throughout history". Prior to Gutenberg, the texts were copied by hand with the great potential for human error. Many of those "original manuscripts" were derived from oral tradition, which itself has the potential to change details over time (think of the game Telephone). Furthermore, it was not until the 4th century that any attempt at a biblical canon was made. Prior to that, disparate christian communities each had their own list of what counted as holy texts. Christian doctrine was nebulous enough that Arianism was able to develop and take root -- a strain of christianity which denied jesus' divinity. Constantine had to convoke the council of Nicaea to stamp it out.

Apart from these caveats, it is an egregious distortion to speak today of a "christian community" as if it is a cohesive group with a unified set of doctrines. Previously, I asked sugarfree what the 'christian' stance was on various topics such as biblical literalism, the eucharist and contraception. The truth is, there is no standard 'christian' stance on these and many other topics -- which is to say that 'the christian community' is a essentially fictitious.

razorphreak wrote:
JW's have a book that has been mistranslated ON PURPOSE and though that doctrine has gone against Christian based practices (for example, the intentional mistranslation of the word "spirit" to "active force&quotEye-wink.

There is never a one-to-one correspondence between the vocabularies and semantics of two languages. When choosing the appropriate words in a translation, one is bound to settle for imperfection. Consider that many words in the English language have different meanings or connotations than they did in Stuart England (when the KJV was commissioned). It is very presumptuous indeed to claim you know the precise semantics of "πνευμα" from 2,000 years ago, as well as the appropriate counterpart in modern English.

razorphreak wrote:
Their book, the New World Translation, along with their C&C structure (my term) called the Watch Tower, are not accepted as Christian based on their translation to which has been proven to be incorrect based on the original G/H texts.

Who holds the authority to accept or reject what is christian?

razorphreak wrote:

Mormon has the exact same issues along with some really wild ideas about after life...

Please elaborate. What makes mormonism's ideas "really wild" in contrast to those of the "christian community"

razorphreak wrote:
... and the direct contradiction as to how Joseph Smith received his "Book of Mormon" and how the bible states how God approaches people (along with others who know what God does to bring the word to you directly).

The angel moroni appeared to j.s. and told him where he could find the golden plates with the book written on them. How is that any less outlandish than Moses receiving the 10 commandments on golden tablets on mt. sinai, or gabriel appearing to mary to tell her she'll have a child?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Are you being

AiiA wrote:
Are you being just a bit paranoid? I'm only trying to correct your error on the usage of the word infidel. If we have different meanings for the words we use in a discussion how are we going to understand one another? I define infidel according to the dictionary but appearantly you are using a different source.
Perhaps I was. It is a term being widely used currently by the muslim extremists, hence the quite negative connotations. (That all us infidels in the west must die...) I'm sorry if I misinterpretted your intent.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: Which people

mouse wrote:
Which people who call themselves christians do not?

how do you know? these are issues which are confusing to non-christians, esp. those who are not raised in this narrative tradition.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism are the obvious examples. Mormon's in particular have an addition to the Bible called the Book of Mormon, which causes their philosophy to stray of Christianity.

As with any group of people, there are liberal Christians, moderate Christians, and fundamental Christians. I feel it is usually most reasonable to hang out in the middle. Middle of the road churches will teach that Christ was God incarnate and that he died to save us from our sins. When I refer to the "Christian community" I am not necessarily excluding those churches on the far left and far right...but then again, maybe. It would have to be taken on a case by case basis. But, there is no "worldwide Christian Committee" that represents the Christian community...


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: Are you

triften wrote:
Are you blaming the feminist movement for your current employment?
No. I try not to play the blame game. But I do look back and realize that as I was growing up, I was told I could do anything a man could do. In school, based on my grades, it was impressed upon me that I should go out, get a job, and make something of myself. So, not knowing how things would turn out or that that kind of unfocused determination to be "successful" could lead to dissatisfaction in other areas, that's the road I took.
triften wrote:
It's not like you don't have a choice.
Certainly, I have a choice, however, it is not as easy nowadays to make the choice to stay home and raise a kid, as boys are also growing up under the impression that women go to school and get jobs just like they do.
triften wrote:
Why don't you move back in with your parents and quit your job until you meet some nice man to marry?
Ha ha. Already married.
triften wrote:
What's forcing you to work? If it's purely an income issue, don't you think that has more to do with the economy than the radical idea that women are people, too?
Well, yes of course, it is economical. I have been bringing home the bacon for awhile now, which is empowering, however, gee, it would feel great to be taken care of in that way. Also, now that it accepts that women can and/or should work, our economy has shifted as such that now two incomes are almost required. Probably the main reason for that shift, myself included, is that our (US society's) expectations have gone right up with our household earning potential. I have a pretty nice house, and for me to stay home, we'd REALLY have to downsize. Maybe this will happen. I don't know. Time will tell...