Is it starting?

[thacraic]

Have you ever worked on the Sabbath? Worn a veil in Church? Are you of the original Catholic church or a denomination that broke off from this church?

It's all relative.

Yes. No. And Christians have been around a lot longer than Catholics.

 

[BVS]

Yes. No. And Christians have been around a lot longer than Catholics.

Then you've already strayed. What's the oldest existing denomination still around?

 

[thacraic]

Then you've already strayed. What's the oldest existing denomination still around?

That group of people who believe that Jesus Christ died on a cross to save them from their sins.

 

[BVS]

That group of people who believe that Jesus Christ died on a cross to save them from their sins.

Well I believe in that and so do the majority of Christians. So are you saying the practices can be revised just not the belief that Christ died for our sins? If that's the case I don't see relativism.

So exactly where is the relativism? In beliefs or in interpretation? Or am I not quite grasping this?

And believe me I ask out of all sincerity.

 

[thacraic]

Well I believe in that and so do the majority of Christians. So are you saying the practices can be revised just not the belief that Christ died for our sins? If that's the case I don't see relativism.

So exactly where is the relativism? In beliefs or in interpretation? Or am I not quite grasping this?

And believe me I ask out of all sincerity.

Hiya BVS,

I will be the first to tell anyone that if they believe Christ died for their sins and accept that as the only means by which someone can be saved then they are a Christian. Then also, striving to be Christ-like factors in of course because that is what the word Christian means. But to embrace only what Christ teaches and discount everything else in scripture in the end undermines everything Christ taught. I can explain this on another thread if needed or via email (thacraic@yahoo.com). I feel like the original purpose of this thread has been overlooked, and I am guilty of having done that more than anyone. And I am about to do it again...

In todays world, relativism is present in both the beliefs and the interpretation of Biblical truths. I will show you an example of relativism. After reading the snipets that Dreadsox has posted of Bishop Spong I did a little reasearch of my own. I found that Spong has came up with his version of Martin Luther's 95 theses. Thankfully Spong's only amount to 12, anymore and I think I would have taken a hammer to my monitor in a weak moment of sheer human rage. Spong's theses are as follows:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

Now this is probably worthy of a thread into itself. Maybe after seeing replies to this, I will in fact start a new thread which pertains to these theses. It would be interesting to see what both Christians and non-Christians have to say about it.

 

[Irvine511]

There is nothing wrong with Christianity. It is right in every way. I do not know why anyone who was a follower of it would criticize it. The problem lies not with it anyway, but with some of its followers.

[...]

In terms of the media's roll in it an example would be how Mel Gibson was treated when The Passion was released here in the States. The media tried everything to make him out to be a fanatic bordering on lunacy. His "extreme orthodox" views were constantly being picked apart, mocked and attacked. The media even went so far as to exploit Gibson's father ( who from what I saw of it was a bit nutty but he is older than dirt and at his age you have a right to be nuts and grumpy and wear the waist of your pants up to your chest) all over his traditional Christian views. We saw what happened of course. Mel's career is in no danger and the movie mad a gazillion dollars, but it still does not change the fact that he was persecuted for his beliefs.

I hope this shed some light on how I view (A FORM OF)persecution of an individual or further still a group of people.

Take care,

Carrie

phew! now it's settled. Christianity is perfect. all other religions please step outside the velvet ropes.


i think the Gibson example is perfect. you claim he was persecuted. i don't think he'd agree -- he set out to create a firestorm of criticism around his movie, which generated controversey, which then perfectly played into that movie's brilliant marketing campaign. billed as "the movies the Jews don't want you to see," why wouldn't you see it? (i didn't ... i have no interest in watching a 2 hour torture-and-snuff film ... but i followed the contraversy around the film very, very closely).

i also do think that Gibson is a fanatic of sorts. his homophobia and sexism are well known in hollywood, and for any catholic to reject the 1965 church, uh, "amendments" *and* to state that his father, on record as a Holocaust denier, has "never told him a lie" ... well i think we can easily put him in the crazy category. and he also knows how to play the "jew card" -- he knows how to give those that think the jews killed jesus the red meat they want, and he knows how to make it ambiguous enough for the apologists, and how to shadow with just enough anti-Semitism (both in the film and in his interviews) to get the Jews on the defensive. am i persecuting Gibson? not at all. he's perfectly free to hold whatever beliefs he wants, to promote them with his "art" (or, better, ultra-violence masquerading as history and combined with an aggressive marketing campaign with it's most powerful influence among the grass-roots ... much like BC04, come to think of it). i am also free to criticize Gibson, call him crazy, and this is not persecution.

don't sell Gibson short -- he's not a meek servant of God, he's a shrewd provocateur, and you have to understand that naked declarations of faith at the exclusion of all others -- like you said above, that Christianity is perfect -- are inherently provacative, and if people respond, you have no grounds to feel persecuted.

finally, and i'm going upon what i've read about the movie written by people i respect, it seems that the centerpiece of the film -- the scouring -- isn't even historically accurate or supported by the Gospels. but Gibson (obsessed with sadism, as anyone who's seen "braveheart" knows) knows how to work an audience. and he made a jaw-dropping $370m in the US alone. don't think he feels persecuted one little bit.

 

[thacraic]

phew! now it's settled. Christianity is perfect. all other religions please step outside the velvet ropes.

Hiya Irvine,

It seems you failed to notice I said the problem lies with its followers.

At any rate, The Passion was not anti-semetic. The Jews did not kill Christ, we all did. Chritianity is not flawed in any way, PEOPLE that pervert it are. Respond if you will, merely responding to statements as you put it wouldn't be persecution. Trying to tear someone to shreds because of how they believe is. The media did in fact try to do that with Gibson, if you choose not to view it as such and rationalize your choice in the manner you did, nothing I, nor anyone can offer up will counter it.

Take care,

Carrie

 

[BVS]

Hiya BVS,

I will be the first to tell anyone that if they believe Christ died for their sins and accept that as the only means by which someone can be saved then they are a Christian. Then also, striving to be Christ-like factors in of course because that is what the word Christian means. But to embrace only what Christ teaches and discount everything else in scripture in the end undermines everything Christ taught. I can explain this on another thread if needed or via email (thacraic@yahoo.com). I feel like the original purpose of this thread has been overlooked, and I am guilty of having done that more than anyone. And I am about to do it again...

In todays world, relativism is present in both the beliefs and the interpretation of Biblical truths. I will show you an example of relativism. After reading the snipets that Dreadsox has posted of Bishop Spong I did a little reasearch of my own. I found that Spong has came up with his version of Martin Luther's 95 theses. Thankfully Spong's only amount to 12, anymore and I think I would have taken a hammer to my monitor in a weak moment of sheer human rage. Spong's theses are as follows:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

Now this is probably worthy of a thread into itself. Maybe after seeing replies to this, I will in fact start a new thread which pertains to these theses. It would be interesting to see what both Christians and non-Christians have to say about it.

This is a rather extreme example. This is not one being followed by a large number of churches. Your original argument of relavism made it sound like it's running rampant everywhere. I'd like to see these examples.

This one like you said probably deserves it's own thread.

 

[thacraic]

This is a rather extreme example. This is not one being followed by a large number of churches. Your original argument of relavism made it sound like it's running rampant everywhere. I'd like to see these examples.

This one like you said probably deserves it's own thread.

Sounds good mate . Will start one now.

 

[Irvine511]

At any rate, The Passion was not anti-semetic. The Jews did not kill Christ, we all did. Chritianity is not flawed in any way, PEOPLE that pervert it are. Respond if you will, merely responding to statements as you put it wouldn't be persecution. Trying to tear someone to shreds because of how they believe is. The media did in fact try to do that with Gibson, if you choose not to view it as such and rationalize your choice in the manner you did, nothing I, nor anyone can offer up will counter it.

boy, this really is futile.

you make statements, i challenge them, sometimes, and then it's persecution. By making statements like:

1. Christianity is not flawed
2. the Passion is not anti-semetic
3. we all killed Christ

you are making provocative statements that anyone who disagrees is going to call you out on them and force you to defend your statements. these aren't facts, as you assert, they are articles of your faith. faith is not fact, for if it were fact, it wouldn't be faith. you can cover your ears and shut your eyes and say "stop persecuting me for my beliefs" all you want, but this isn't persecution. in fact, it's a sign of respect that i'm not dismissing any of these things as silly.

it's not how someone believes, but how those beliefs manifest themself in the world, and if those beliefs then infringe upon someone else's right to persue happiness. Mel Gibson made a film that was delibertely crafted to suggest anti-Semitism in order to create something of a contraversy. the result: $370m in box office. i work in "the biz" and believe me: marketing strategies are highly, highly sophistocated and complex.

and besides, i never said it was anti-Semetic -- i said it was shadowed with anti-Semitism, it suggested anti-Semitism (since Passion Plays were one of the ways medieval Europeans whipped the christians up into an anti-semetic frenzy), and then they used this as a marketing device. very shrewed.

 

[Irvine511]

It seems you failed to notice I said the problem lies with its followers.

so the religion is perfect, but the followers aren't.

i agree that the followers aren't perfect, but i don't think the religion is either. to make such a statement requires a faith that many of us, including many christians, don't share. you present it as fact, when it's an opinion at best, delusional at worst.

 

[thacraic]

so the religion is perfect, but the followers aren't.

i agree that the followers aren't perfect, but i don't think the religion is either. to make such a statement requires a faith that many of us, including many christians, don't share. you present it as fact, when it's an opinion at best, delusional at worst.

Well it is not a religion, but no the followers of Christianity are not perfect. If we were there would have been no reason for what Christ did on the cross. But yes I present it as fact because I believe it to be the ONLY Truth. Delusional or not, it is how I see it.

 

[Irvine511]

Well it is not a religion, but no the followers of Christianity are not perfect. If we were there would have been no reason for what Christ did on the cross. But yes I present it as fact because I believe it to be the ONLY Truth. Delusional or not, it is how I see it.

Christianity is not a religion? Please clarify.

You are perfectly welcome to regard it as the ONLY truth, but please understand that you present it in a chauvinistic manner. where's the humility? faith connotes doubt, and doubt should always be humble. don't see any of that here.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Them why dont Christians stop tainting their very own religion so much with their bias and bigotry and exclusionary practices?

This is getting a tad silly. Sometimes it IS the religion itself, unless you are happy to admit there are a great number of influential people in your church's organisation who wouldn't know fairness and grace and compassion if it came up and bit them square in the arse.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Lets be absolutely clear right here and now, it is allright for somebody to argue that certain religious texts are plain wrong - being tainted with bias, bigotry and exlusion?

 

[Dreadsox]

Yes. No. And Christians have been around a lot longer than Catholics.

 

[Dreadsox]

Lets be absolutely clear right here and now, it is allright for somebody to argue that certain religious texts are plain wrong - being tainted with bias, bigotry and exlusion?

No!!!! You are wrong!!!!

It is the literal WORD and should be followed to a T.

Only issues dealing with women are considered to be cultural and therefore excluded.

Mistakes made in translation are to be ignored because we want it to mean what we want so that we can be righteous.

The Bible is literal, and any mistakes found in it that do not match up to history should be clung to in spite of historical evidence.

We will quote the old testament when it suits us to prove our point and ignore it when we choose to.

Now you get it straight

 

[Angela Harlem]

Dread!

 

[Dreadsox]

Dread!

Yes my little Outback Special

 

[Angela Harlem]

Sorry, that was a bit/a lot inappropriate. Excuse my childish glibness.

Unless you are deadly serious dread, in which case I suggest you don your gloves, boyo!

 

[Dreadsox]

Sorry, that was a bit/a lot inappropriate. Excuse my childish glibness.

Unless you are deadly serious dread, in which case I suggest you don your gloves, boyo!

Hmmm which would be more fun....mud wrestling with Angela......

or.....




Never mind

 

[Angela Harlem]