Silly Christofacsists on CNN burning Harry Potter books - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-18-2005, 02:27 PM   #151
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

okay. plain and simple: if one is going to insist that the world is only 4,000 years old because the Bible tells them so, and if the best science we know has reached a virtual consensus that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, then i am guilty of intellectual snobbery when i think that people who believe THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION of the Bible is correct are willfull fucking idiots.
You keep talking about "interpretation"...well, some things such as almost the entire book of Revelation, are left open for interpretation. But some things are laid out explicitly. The connection that I pointed out between Adam and Eve and the sin nature and the new covenant under Christ is one of those things. The Bible clearly states that (1)Adam and Eve were actual human beings and that (2)their sin nature was passed down to every human ever born and that (3)Christ is the Second Adam. Christ even referred to Adam and Eve himself, in the context of them actually existed. As I said before, I believe that Christ actually said every word that he is recorded to have said in the Bible. Therefore, I believe that he believed that Adam and Eve existed. Therefore, since I believe that he is indeed the Son of God, I believe that he was right in his belief that Adam and Eve existed, because he would have known since he is the Son of God.

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
they're being purposefully ignorant, and i'm going to calla spade a spade. and, yes, that is dangerous. closed minds are dangerous.
No, that's not being "purposefully ignorant". That's putting trust in God's word over man's wisdom. And that's where we are VASTLY different. You do put more credence in man's wisdom than the word of God, and I don't. I realize that you don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that's why you put trust in man's wisdom over the Bible. But I DO believe that it is the word of God, so I put trust in it over man's wisdom. You may be thinking I'm a fool, and I don't really care. One thing I know for sure is that if there IS a God, I am a fool compared to him, and so are all teh scientists in the world, as well as everyone else.

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
what i think is just HILARIOUS, 80s, is that you are making the assumptions that ALL christians (or perhaps it is all true Christians? are you looking to play that game?) believe every word the Bible says? or that belief in every word the Bible says is necessarily predicated upon scientific ignorance?

if so, then God help you all.
What I think is hilarious is that you are drawing that from the thin blue air. I never said that all Christians or even all true Christians believe every word of the Bible is true.

But I do wonder where they draw they line when they decide which parts of the Bible are true and which not. What is the criteria for making such a decision? Is it science? Is it that everything in the Bible that contradicts popular scientific thought is false? If so, how do they know that the popular scientific thought is correct, not the Bible? And if they can know that for sure, why put any trust in the Bible? What makes them believe that any of it is true, if not all of it? Again I ask, what the heck is the criteria?

If God wanted man to have his true Word, why would he allow it to be put together in a book with a lot of things that weren't true? Wouldn't God have taken steps to preserve his word?

We will NEVER agree on any of this, because of what each of us puts ultimate trust in.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 02:30 PM   #152
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:16 AM
80s are you a Bible literalist in the sense of believing the World is only 4,000 years old, and if so how would you account for the evidence of geology, carbon-dating of fossils and the apparent lack of any reference to dinosoaurs in the Old Testament?
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 02:36 PM   #153
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

But I do wonder where they draw they line when they decide which parts of the Bible are true and which not. What is the criteria for making such a decision? Is it science? Is it that everything in the Bible that contradicts popular scientific thought is false? If so, how do they know that the popular scientific thought is correct, not the Bible? And if they can know that for sure, why put any trust in the Bible? What makes them believe that any of it is true, if not all of it? Again I ask, what the heck is the criteria?

If God wanted man to have his true Word, why would he allow it to be put together in a book with a lot of things that weren't true? Wouldn't God have taken steps to preserve his word?

while i'm not one of these Christians, i think they'd tell you something along the lines of: "i believe in the Bible, but the message of the Bible as opposed to the literal word itself which i know was written by men, been translated numerous times, is subject to any and all cultural influences over the centuries, so therefore, using the logic and rationality bestowed upon me by God i will read the Bible and understand that Adam and Eve, the creation of the world in 7 days, Noah's Ark, and other such things are allegories intended to put into human terms what we cannot understand. i can then look at what Jesus said, and through studying the message and armed with the knowledge that there were no tape recorders or stenographers back then, elucidate the Jesus message and mediate that through my head, heart, and conscience. through good faith, in both God and in man, i believe the truth of the Bible will reveal itself independent of whatever "facts" the all too human writers used in order to spread their message."

in my own opinion, i think the Bible is merely an attempt to humanize the infinite, and that it's an act of great hubris to personalize and humanize infinite power.

what puzzles me is how you speak about god as if he were human, a friend, a kindly old father with a long grey beard.

if there is a God, i'm pretty sure he's got no human characteristics.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 03:44 PM   #154
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



i don't think anyone's saying they shouldn't be *allowed* to burn the books.

we (or at least i) are just saying that they're simple minded fools.
Or at least give the opportunity to express hated with terms like "Christofacsists" or "Christian Taliban"
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 04:07 PM   #155
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Or at least give the opportunity to express hated with terms like "Christofacsists" or "Christian Taliban"
Interesting how some of us criticise political correctness when it comes from the left, but when elements of the Christian right are compared to the Taliban it is 'expressing hatred'.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 04:16 PM   #156
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


what puzzles me is how you speak about god as if he were human, a friend, a kindly old father with a long grey beard.

if there is a God, i'm pretty sure he's got no human characteristics.
I'm not thinking god has a long grey beard. But the Bible does speak of characteristics that relate God in human terms. God is referred to as our father, and Christ is referred to as our brother.
There are many other passages that do this.

Not only does the Bible say that man was created "in God's image", but Christ was God incarnate. He was 100% human, 100% God at the same time. He embodied in a physical form, everything that God is. He himself said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father". So yes, I'd say Christianity teachs that through Christ, God has human characteristics.

As far as God being our friend, Christ addressed this with his own words, in John 15:14-15:

"You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you."
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 04:21 PM   #157
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
As far as God being our friend, Christ addressed this with his own words, in John 15:14-15:

"You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you."
Taken out of context, that makes God seem like a tyrant.

God's "command" is this, according to John 15:12:

"This is my commandment: love one another as I love you."

With that in mind, it seems a lot more reasonable.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 04:27 PM   #158
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



while i'm not one of these Christians, i think they'd tell you something along the lines of: "i believe in the Bible, but the message of the Bible as opposed to the literal word itself which i know was written by men, been translated numerous times, is subject to any and all cultural influences over the centuries, so therefore, using the logic and rationality bestowed upon me by God i will read the Bible and understand that Adam and Eve, the creation of the world in 7 days, Noah's Ark, and other such things are allegories intended to put into human terms what we cannot understand. i can then look at what Jesus said, and through studying the message and armed with the knowledge that there were no tape recorders or stenographers back then, elucidate the Jesus message and mediate that through my head, heart, and conscience. through good faith, in both God and in man, i believe the truth of the Bible will reveal itself independent of whatever "facts" the all too human writers used in order to spread their message."
If they told " using the logic and rationality bestowed upon me by God i will read the Bible and understand that Adam and Eve, the creation of the world in 7 days, Noah's Ark, and other such things are allegories intended to put into human terms what we cannot understand", it would just take me back to the question I asked you, Irvine:

"How do you know that your logic and rationality are correct?"

Then I would say to them: Why do you believe any of the Bible at all? Why do you believe in its message? How do you know that the whole thing isn't screwed up?
Personally, I'm not going to put my faith in a book about God unless I believe that it is 100% true.

So you see, we'd get nowhere. And you'd say it's because of my refusal to listen to what the consensus of scientists say, and I say that this consensus are human and fallible and could very well be wrong when they say that Adam and Eve did not exist. I have had 2 physical experiences from God, and so there is no doubt in my mind that he exists. And since I have no doubt that he exists, I know that his wisdom is greater than man's. So when the book that I believe to be the word of God says something explictly, I believe it.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 04:30 PM   #159
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Taken out of context, that makes God seem like a tyrant.

God's "command" is this, according to John 15:12:

"This is my commandment: love one another as I love you."

With that in mind, it seems a lot more reasonable.

Melon
What's your point, melon? I know that Christ said that.

But why do so many people leave off what Christ called "The Great Commandment"?

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great Commandment. "
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 04:33 PM   #160
Refugee
 
XHendrix24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,496
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Interesting how some of us criticise political correctness when it comes from the left, but when elements of the Christian right are compared to the Taliban it is 'expressing hatred'.
Nonono. Politcal correctness and expressing hatred are two completely different things. Don't try to make the two seem the same.

Terms like "the bible belt" (not the best example, but work with me here) to refer to some select heavily Christian states in America isn't politically correct, but it's really just a nickname for those states with no particular connotation, good or bad. This is like calling African Americans "black people."

Calling right-wing Christians "Christofascists" and the "Christian Taliban" is just like calling black people who listen to gangster rap "niggers" and "spear-chuckers." It's insulting, demeaning, and completely unneccessary.
__________________
XHendrix24 is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 04:35 PM   #161
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,284
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by XHendrix24


Calling right-wing Christians "Christofascists" and the "Christian Taliban" is just like calling black people who listen to gangster rap "niggers" and "spear-chuckers." It's insulting, demeaning, and completely unneccessary.
I thought it was a response to the people on this forum who keep using terms like "Islamofascists" and so on.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 04:35 PM   #162
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by XHendrix24


Nonono. Politcal correctness and expressing hatred are two completely different things. Don't try to make the two seem the same.

Terms like "the bible belt" (not the best example, but work with me here) to refer to some select heavily Christian states in America isn't politically correct, but it's really just a nickname for those states with no particular connotation, good or bad. This is like calling African Americans "black people."

Calling right-wing Christians "Christofascists" and the "Christian Taliban" is just like calling black people who listen to gangster rap "niggers" and "spear-chuckers." It's insulting, demeaning, and completely unneccessary.
Thank you!
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 04:36 PM   #163
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


I thought it was a response to the people on this forum who keep using terms like "Islamofascists" and so on.
How many people on this forum do that, as opposed to how many people use insulting terms against conservative Christianity?

If I wanted to, I could name you at the very minimum 5 people right off the bat that have used insulting names against conservative Christianity.

Can you name at least 5 that have insulted Islam in that way?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 04:37 PM   #164
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I thought it was a response to the people on this forum who keep using terms like "Islamofascists" and so on.
Anitram has hit the nail on the head.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 04:45 PM   #165
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,284
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Can you name at least 5 that have insulted Islam in that way?
Honestly, 80s, why do you have to be so aggressive and jump all over the most minute thing?

Why should I name anyone? I haven't participated in this thread, I've not started it, not named it, nor ever used any of those terms that you object to. All I did is comment on what I thought to be the reason behind using the term, based on observations in this forum.

Find yourself one of those people to quibble with. I'm not playing.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com