Battra92 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 It's suppose to be that way Dean, but there are members of various sects that treat Christianity as a sort of dick-measuring game. If you don't meet some arbitrary criteria, you're classified as a "cult" or simply a "non-Christian." The major issue Christians have with those outside the mainstream (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.) is usually due to the fact that they reject Christ as the sole source of salvation. In Mormonism one is required to be baptized (even posthumously) and that Joseph Smith is part of a godhead who judges you. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is inferior to the father and is really just Michael the Archangel. That's hardly arbitrary criteria; those are major differences. I remember reading something Billy Graham wrote that stated: In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, love. As far as politics, you're partially right with the "right kind of Christian" as there are individuals who have this idealized version of a President. John F. Kennedy, one of the greatest Presidents, had to overcome being Catholic during his election, and to this day there are still people who get upset about Catholics and other non-Protestants in political offices. As if they're corrupting the country from the inside, or some other rubbish. Not quite sure who those people are. Chris Christie was actively sought to be the Republican nominee and he's a practicing Catholic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Considering that my church is called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the idea that Christ is rejected as the source of salvation is laughable. Yeah, you're talking to a Mormon, or more accurately a Latter-day Saint, here. B) But believe what you will as you have the freedom to, and I don't come online to have in-depth religious debates as I get enough of those offline. As for my last paragraph, there isn't much contention with Catholics now, but it was an issue decades ago and some people hold onto their ideals of a "perfect" President. Back in 2008 I had people talking my ear off about how the President needs to be a Protestant, even to the extent of a specific sect. You can probably classify them as extremists, but they're out there as I've come face to face with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baconrath Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 God is love Love is blind Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Just to get this bit clear - every religion has sects and groups. It's not an exclusive to any one religion. And each sect of a religion believes they're the right one. It's valid even amongst irreligious groups. It's the tribal nature of human beings. Sometimes it's possibly valid reasons but more often than not it is - 'I know I'm right and you're right, but I'm more right than you are.' That is a discussion, that is honestly beyond religion and more into the nature of human beings. It is interesting to see how humanity moved from God is in everything to a more solidified concept of an entity. Also something people often forget is that, religions adopt beliefs from pre-existing religions or cultures with ease so long as it doesn't majorly conflict since the early stage of religion is acceptance, assimilation and growth 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Just trying to make my point about liberal messages in media? Edit: also, that's a pretty weak straw man argument. Edited February 21, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Just trying to make my point about liberal messages in media? Edit: also, that's a pretty weak straw man argument. What, just because something's a "liberal" message means it's wrong? Also, it has a point. You pick and choose which verses of the Bible to follow to serve your own purposes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) What, just because something's a "liberal" message means it's wrong? Also, it has a point. You pick and choose which verses of the Bible to follow to serve your own purposes. It's a cheap media straw man attack filled with cliches. First you bring in the president who cracks jokes and is likeable. He then proceeds to talk but gets choked up because of the injustice in the room. First he decides he's going to destroy the credibility of the straw man by pointing that she has no qualifications. Then he's going to use a simplistic one sided argument to destroy the straw man and the straw man will remain mute and not defend his position. It's pretty by the book and it's pretty weak. It's meant to appeal to emotion more than intellect as anyone should be able to realize that there is nobody actually trying to stone or burn anyone these days. Just for reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument Edited February 21, 2012 by Yantelope V2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 What, just because something's a "liberal" message means it's wrong? Also, it has a point. You pick and choose which verses of the Bible to follow to serve your own purposes. It's a cheap media straw man attack filled with cliches. First you bring in the president who cracks jokes and is likeable. He then proceeds to talk but gets choked up because of the injustice in the room. First he decides he's going to destroy the credibility of the straw man by pointing that she has no qualifications. Then he's going to use a simplistic one sided argument to destroy the straw man and the straw man will remain mute and not defend his position. It's pretty by the book and it's pretty weak. It's meant to appeal to emotion more than intellect as anyone should be able to realize that there is nobody actually trying to stone or burn anyone these days. Yeah, that's because you guys don't like stoning or burning. But you DO like denying homosexuals of their rights, preventing contraception, calling abortion murder, etc., because those fit your own prejudices and maligned beliefs. You use the Bible as a shield to defend what you personally don't care for, and that's despicable. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Well, I've already made my arguments for the last 8 pages but it seems you're content to just dismiss it all and keep going with your rants. Keep going on arguing but know you're just fighting a straw man. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Well, I've already made my arguments for the last 8 pages but it seems you're content to just dismiss it all and keep going with your rants. Keep going on arguing but know you're just fighting a straw man. There's a difference between dismissing someone's arguments to "win" themselves and dismissing someone's arguments because those arguments are based on flawed theories and flat-out wrong. Besides, it's ridiculous to call me out on not reading what you wrote, when you didn't even read the Rolling Stones article I linked before writing it off because "Rolling Stone is trash". I read your stupid National Review article, top to bottom, even though that was truly trash. Edited February 21, 2012 by DukeOfPwn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post MasterDex Posted February 21, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) @Yant: So then how can you be a bible literalist if you don't follow the bible literally? Even if you don't stone or burn anyone for "sinning", are we to believe that you do think homosexuality is an abomination, that all those who do not follow or believe in God are heretics that will burn in hell? Even if you don't believe we should be put to death for sins that the bible says we should be, are we to assume that you hold the laws and values of the bible to be true? At this point I have to say I'm confused. It seems like one minute you're sticking to verse and interpreting it literally and then doing the exact opposite and interpreting it in a broader sense. You accuse Duke of attacking a straw man but I don't see you explaining why it's a straw man. Again it seems like you're simply picking and choosing what to obey and use from the bible to suit your own sensibilities. If that is the case, why not just forget about the bible and accept that your beliefs and morals come not from any higher power but your own mind and your theistic influences and stop using the bible and your own personal interpretation of it as a shield? Not that I want to tempt you or anything but it just seems a bit pointless and hypocritical to hold the bible up high while burning the pages you're not happy with. Edited February 21, 2012 by MasterDex 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 The video makes a good point on the seemingly pick 'n' mix approach many Christians take. Pick the prejudices of the bible they like, then leave behind the icky ones like stoning n such that aren't as socially acceptable these days. Which does highlight that eventually most of the bibles prejudices will become obsolete overtime and those that hold strong to their prejudices that align with the bible will over time also become shunned (As is rightly already happening in current society). Everything that goes against your view point isn't instantly "Liberal" you know. Also maybe go beyond that at some point instead of using "It's liberal" as some get out of jail free card. and actually provide meaningful discussion and debate? edit: I guess what Dex is saying. Though I've said similar before. You can't be a biblical literalist, then not take some of the bible literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Unless you want to be a Biblical Semi-Literalist, which seems like the proper category for most who claim to take the Bible literally. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 It's a cheap media straw man attack filled with cliches. First you bring in the president who cracks jokes and is likeable. He then proceeds to talk but gets choked up because of the injustice in the room. First he decides he's going to destroy the credibility of the straw man by pointing that she has no qualifications. Then he's going to use a simplistic one sided argument to destroy the straw man and the straw man will remain mute and not defend his position. It's pretty by the book and it's pretty weak. It's meant to appeal to emotion more than intellect as anyone should be able to realize that there is nobody actually trying to stone or burn anyone these days. Just for reference. http://en.wikipedia....aw_man_argument Well, I've already made my arguments for the last 8 pages but it seems you're content to just dismiss it all and keep going with your rants. Keep going on arguing but know you're just fighting a straw man. Protip: "Straw man" doesn't mean "any argument that proves me wrong in any way." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) This is the straw man right here "Yeah, that's because you guys don't like stoning or burning. But you DO like denying homosexuals of their rights, preventing contraception, calling abortion murder, etc., because those fit your own prejudices and maligned beliefs. You use the Bible as a shield to defend what you personally don't care for, and that's despicable." I spent 8 pages giving you guys examples of what I do and don't believe which go largely ignored only to get to the exact same trite generalization. I know that you don't accept what I believe but you don't even make an attempt to understand it. That's why you just reset to your old straw men arguments to make your points. I did read the Rolling Stone article. It was emotional and not rational. Filled with lots of editorializing, testimonies, hate and other garbage and very little fact. I didn't feel the need to comment on it. If it's not a straw man argument then why not explain to me how it is not? You don't even try to do that. You just go back to I'm wrong and you're right and that's that. Edited February 21, 2012 by Yantelope V2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 It was emotional and not rational. Filled with lots of editorializing, testimonies, hate and other garbage and very little fact. And yante we're making plenty examples to understand why you believe what you do. Such I myself inquiring upon your foundations in science education with relation to your grasp of the theory of evolution. We're also curious on how you can on one hand claim to be a biblical literalist, yet frequently dismiss and reject many of the dodgier things the bible literally tells you to do. I'm coming from an angle of someone whose religious education never actually left room for "people that might think this is real/fact"(in relation to all religions/mythologies), so I'm coming in on this angle. You are a new experience to me and I do wish to understand where you came from, what is the foundation to your beliefs, philosophies, morality system etc. Just you provide a very scattered image, not helped with the copious about of verbatim copy pasting from bible sites which really don't help in me understanding where you come from on these matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 This is the straw man right here "Yeah, that's because you guys don't like stoning or burning. But you DO like denying homosexuals of their rights, preventing contraception, calling abortion murder, etc., because those fit your own prejudices and maligned beliefs. You use the Bible as a shield to defend what you personally don't care for, and that's despicable." I spent 8 pages giving you guys examples of what I do and don't believe which go largely ignored only to get to the exact same trite generalization. I know that you don't accept what I believe but you don't even make an attempt to understand it. That's why you just reset to your old straw men arguments to make your points. I did read the Rolling Stone article. It was emotional and not rational. Filled with lots of editorializing, testimonies, hate and other garbage and very little fact. I didn't feel the need to comment on it. If it's not a straw man argument then why not explain to me how it is not? You don't even try to do that. You just go back to I'm wrong and you're right and that's that. You called yourself a Bible literalist. That means you take the Bible literally. That means that you accept everything in the Bible as being literally true, not a metaphor. That is what the word MEANS. So how can you expect us to understand and appreciate what you believe when you can't even be consistent? You call yourself a literalist, then you talk about how some sections are clearly metaphor. If you are a literalist, if you are truly what you claim to be, then Duke's comments all hold water. Then you should believe that homosexuality is an abomination, that working on the Sabbath is cause for execution, that touching the skin of a pig makes you unclean, etc. This, I think, is the core problem- your lack of consistency. Most of us are going with the idea that you're a literalist, because you said that pretty out-and-out. But a lot of your statements contradict that, and we don't understand what you really believe. It seems to you like we're attacking a position you don't have because you've portrayed yourself as having NUMEROUS different positions. We are attacking one of them, we don't know which one is the real you. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Well, I am trying to be clear and it's hard to understand and even harder to explain so I'm sorry for the confusion I cause. I'd be happy to further explain more things I said to help alleviate the confusion. The only thing that is pissing me off is the generalizations that Duke seems intent to make rather than to actually engage in the discussion. I shouldn't let it bother me so much though so for that I am sorry. Theology is complicated because God is complicated. Most people will say that it takes a lifetime to understand so I hope you'll forgive me if my short responses are not satisfactory. I've tried linking to more verbose answers in hopes to not misstate them but I can try to respond personally if that makes it a little easier to follow. In response to being a literalist I may not be using the word correctly. There is a lot of debate, especially in Revelations, on what is literal and what is figurative. There are other sections of the Bible that it is very clear (to me at least) where it is literal. For instance. Jesus would tell a parable about a man sewing seeds. Then he would explain exactly what that parable meant. Some people in the Bible have visions and dreams and those are interpreted. You can't pick something out of those parables or visions and dreams and say that they are literal because the Bible clearly states that they are not. Revelations is slightly less clear. Some of it obviously is symbolic in nature as is most prophecy but pointing to very real entities or places. I don't believe a literal Dragon will come and try to eat a literal woman's baby. I do think it's a picture of the Devil attempting to destroy Christ on the cross. Am I 100% literal? No. I believe what the Bible states literally, including mosaic law, is literal and what the Bible states symbolically is symbolic and where it isn't clear there is room for some discussion. Now some rules as somebody already brought up are symbolic in purpose but literal in nature. I believe the Israelites were not supposed to wear clothes weaved of two fibers. The reason or purpose behind that rule was symbolic in nature. I don't think that's a contradiction. I know it seems like I'm trying to take up multiple positions but I'm really not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Curiosity, not criticism: what is the symbolism of not wearing clothes made of two fibers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 It's in the same line of rules about purity. Don't plant two seeds in the same hole. Don't breed two different types of animals together. The symbolic meaning of which I believe to be keep your self purely to God and no other Gods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Well, I am trying to be clear and it's hard to understand and even harder to explain so I'm sorry for the confusion I cause. I'd be happy to further explain more things I said to help alleviate the confusion. The only thing that is pissing me off is the generalizations that Duke seems intent to make rather than to actually engage in the discussion. I shouldn't let it bother me so much though so for that I am sorry. Theology is complicated because God is complicated. Most people will say that it takes a lifetime to understand so I hope you'll forgive me if my short responses are not satisfactory. I've tried linking to more verbose answers in hopes to not misstate them but I can try to respond personally if that makes it a little easier to follow. In response to being a literalist I may not be using the word correctly. There is a lot of debate, especially in Revelations, on what is literal and what is figurative. There are other sections of the Bible that it is very clear (to me at least) where it is literal. For instance. Jesus would tell a parable about a man sewing seeds. Then he would explain exactly what that parable meant. Some people in the Bible have visions and dreams and those are interpreted. You can't pick something out of those parables or visions and dreams and say that they are literal because the Bible clearly states that they are not. Revelations is slightly less clear. Some of it obviously is symbolic in nature as is most prophecy but pointing to very real entities or places. I don't believe a literal Dragon will come and try to eat a literal woman's baby. I do think it's a picture of the Devil attempting to destroy Christ on the cross. Am I 100% literal? No. I believe what the Bible states literally, including mosaic law, is literal and what the Bible states symbolically is symbolic and where it isn't clear there is room for some discussion. Now some rules as somebody already brought up are symbolic in purpose but literal in nature. I believe the Israelites were not supposed to wear clothes weaved of two fibers. The reason or purpose behind that rule was symbolic in nature. I don't think that's a contradiction. I know it seems like I'm trying to take up multiple positions but I'm really not. First off, I appreciate the effort at clarification. I feel like I understand somewhat better where you stand now. However, I do have a few comments. The "clothes of two fibers" thing... I mean, okay, I can agree that it's probably symbolic. Does that matter? As long as people are being killed for the clothes they wear (probably they aren't anymore, but I'm sure it happened back then), does it matter if it was meant symbolically? Whether by symbol or implement, the dead are still dead. They don't much care if it was supposed to be symbolic. Did you mean metaphoric? That it's not supposed to actually have anything to do with clothes at all? I think that part of it is that you are responsible for what you write. There are people out there who will interpret anything how they want to interpret it. The man who killed John Lennon did so because he decided that Catcher in the Rye was telling him to. That's bullshit. That's his mind taking that book, and turning it into what he wanted it to be. That, or his perception was so screwed up that there was just no accounting for it. The Bible is different. The Bible says things like "stone anyone who works on the Sabbath"- and even if it doesn't really mean "stone people", the way it is written is careless, irresponsible writing that could easily be taken literally by those less inquisitive, and then acted upon. When you write something like that, when you write a law that says you have to kill people for failing in some very minor, arbitrary act, the onus is on you to make it clear whether or not it is metaphorical. If there is a debate about it, let alone a centuries-old debate, you have failed, and the blood is at least partially on your hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Yantelope V2 Posted February 21, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Well, lets get one thing clear. I think when it said to stone people who worked on the sabbath it meant it. Now you're going to wonder why I'm using past tense and that becomes a larger discussion. Mosaic law was given to the israelites after their exodus from Egypt. The laws given to moses which were written down in those books go on in explicit detail on exactly how the Israelites were to set up their nation state. There was to be no King as it was a true theocracy and God was to be their king. They could commune directly with God, literally face to face, in the temple and he would give them direction. There was a large veil in the temple between what was considered the holy place and the holy of holys in which God himself dwelt. This is where the ark of the covenant was kept and God dwelt physically here. If anyone who was not clean were to enter this place they would instantly be killed by the glory of God. The only time anyone could enter was once per year to offer sacrifice and he had to go thorough a long list of cleansing rituals and sacrifices to enter. This is how the atonement for the people's sins was offered. The only rulers were the judges which were to be set up to hear cases of the law. There is a ton of rigorous laws in there like the ones already mentioned and they were to be followed by the people so yes people were killed if they wore the wrong garments and stuff. Now lets also be clear that it's not something as trivial as picking the wrong shirt in the morning. They'd have to be actively going out and making their own clothes of mixed fibers and it would be an act of rebellion in a way but it wasn't something that would have been easy to make a mistake about because people would have known the law and they wouldn't have owned any mixed fiber clothing anyway. So yes, the laws through which the Israelites were to set up their government, commune with God directly and live by were very strict and rigorous. When Jesus came he began giving new rules. These were in preparation for the day which he would die on the cross and the relationship between God and man would change. When Jesus died on the Cross the veil in the temple was ripped top to bottom as Christ's sacrifice had been offered to God for the sins of humanity and no longer did sin separate people from God. As a result the blood of christ now covers people's sins and we can approach God without fear of death. This is actually why the spirit of God is now able to dwell within Christians. Because of Christ's sacrifice the old laws of atonement were removed and new laws of grace apply to us. Additionally Jesus began instructing his apostles to go and spread the faith to non-jewish people for the first time ever (which was quite revolutionary). There were arguments even documented in the book of Acts between Peter and Paul about whether people still needed to be circumcised in order to be saved in which Paul rebukes Peter for returning to the old ways. So as a result of Christ's sacrifice we no longer live by the old rules but we are free from them. Now, that leads into the next point which is why if we are covered by grace do we worry about sin or homosexuality or other controversial issues? Well Paul says "everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial". Repeated in the new testament people are told to turn from sin and serve God as a way of giving thanks to God and also as a way to seek joy in their life. Several times in the new testament there is references to turning away from sins such as homosexuality and no longer being a slave to sin so while we are covered by grace we don't chose to remain in sin as it will only bring us misery. Okay, I'll leave it at that for now and let you guys ask questions. Hope that's not too confusing. The key point is that the laws changed not arbitrarily based on the whims of society or culture but based on the saving work of Christ on the cross. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Unrelated to Yant's post, which I think does quite a good job of clarifying his stances: Today I saw a church with a sign that say "Character is what you are in the dark." Unlike most church billboards that I see, which tend to be quite confrontational and accusatory (along the lines of "Worship Jesus or go to Hell"), this was actually a message that I can agree with and I think it's good because it didn't instantly put me in an adversarial mindset (good for a church because if you want people to come to share your beliefs you're better off not making them feel attacked from the outset). It did, however, get me thinking: are Christians, who believe that God is all-knowing and ever-watching, ever truly "in the dark"? And if not what does that say about their character? (I know that question sounds like an accusation of bad character, but really I only mean it as something to think about/discuss.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Yant, I still don't necessarily agree with you, but that post made everything you said here a lot more clear. Thanks for that, I'll stop sharpening my pitchfork now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.