BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:I think the basic point is the difference between grace theology and works theology.
But we can't even get all those that fall under the umbrella of Christianity to agree on this.
nbcrusader said:I think the basic point is the difference between grace theology and works theology.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
But we can't even get all those that fall under the umbrella of Christianity to agree on this.
nbcrusader said:
Perhaps, but under a grace theology, the incentive for something like martyerdom is missing.
nbcrusader said:Works, under any religious scheme, is ripe for abuse.
nbcrusader said:I know - its not Christian v. Muslim
It is Grace v. Works
Works, under any religious scheme, is ripe for abuse.
FizzingWhizzbees said:
As is 'grace' - if someone only has to say a prayer in order to be forgiven all their 'sins' what's to stop them committing horrendous crimes safe in the knowledge that all they need to do is say a prayer again and all their crimes are forgiven?
FizzingWhizzbees said:
As is 'grace' - if someone only has to say a prayer in order to be forgiven all their 'sins' what's to stop them committing horrendous crimes safe in the knowledge that all they need to do is say a prayer again and all their crimes are forgiven?
nbcrusader said:How do you create a deterence when an eternity of worldly pleasure is sold to these young men as a reward for their deadly acts?
...I think the basic point is the difference between grace theology and works theology.
nbcrusader said:I know - its not Christian v. Muslim
It is Grace v. Works
Works, under any religious scheme, is ripe for abuse.
melon said:
Unfortunately, I believe that is merely a semantical game. Instead, the "grace" crowd often still judge someone by their "works" as "evidence" that they have not accepted Christ--even if the person claims to be Christian--and that they're going to hell.
Same game. Different scam.
Melon
nbcrusader said:
When did we swing back to the same indictments of conservative Christianity?
80sU2isBest said:Just because a person may look at someone's behaviors and say "I have my doubts as to whether that person is really a Christian" doesn't mean he's necessarily fallen back into a system of works, as opposed to grace.
The Bible says that Christians will be known by their fruit. I'm not saying that Christians have perfect fruit, but if I meet someone who claims to be a Christian, but over time show no Christian fruit, it's quite natural to wonder whether the person really is a Christian.
BonoVoxSupastar said:Don't wanna be an American Idiot
Irvine511 said:
yes.
It certainly is.financeguy said:Sorry 80s but that is complete and utter rubbish.
80sU2isBest said:Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
"
So, adding my definition of "fundamentalism" to what you said above, am I correct when I say that your belief is that:
The belief that every word in the Bible is true is a dangerous thing?
Or, to put it in the context of all religions:
The belief that every word in any "holy" book is true is a dangerous thing?"
Personally, I think that for you to say that - nay, even to hold that belief - fans the flames of hatred against people of faith. Christians are executed and jailed all over the world for simply sharing their faith, especially in China. You may not be the actual executioner, but by holding such prejudiced views against Bible-Believing Christians (calling us "dangerous"), you are partially to blame.
financeguy said:
Right.
So for me to say - nay, even to hold the BELIEF - that all religions are wrong (and I do hold that belief, incidentally) means that I am 'fanning flames of hatred'.
Come off it.
financeguy said:Sorry 80s but that is complete and utter rubbish.
anitram said:
Looks like 80s wants to make a point re: previous discussions on homophobia...
80sU2isBest said:
Almost got it, but the discussion wasn't about homophobia. It was about my belief that homosexuality is wrong. Homophobia is defined as the fear or hatred of homosexuals.
Irvine511 said:
you've completely misunderstood and your analogy to homophobia is utter bullshit. just look at my thread about the father who beat his child to death because he was afraid the child, at 3, was gay. your endorsement of homosexuality being "wrong" adds to a climate where it is okay to view homosexuality as lesser, as less than human, as less than acceptable, as a deviation from the norm, as something to be feared. and people die in such climates.
Irvine511 said:to go back to what i was originally saying, i find that people who take each and every literal word of the bible to be true to be dangerous because they are then willing to submit their rationalit and conscience to the words of the Bible. that, to me, is a fundamentalist, by your own definitions, though i would argue that you don't adhere to the definition of a fundamentalist that you mapped out for yourself.
Irvine511 said:
no one of any credibility believes the word was made in 7 days, that Adam and Eve were literal, that a snake actually spoke to Eve, that Noah built an arc and the world flooded. this is a kind of know-nothing/world-is-flat type of thinking that claims the Grand Canyon was made only 3,000 years ago instead of over millions of years.
that kind of thinking is absolutely dangerous.
80sU2isBest said:
It's the same thing, Irvine. Can't you see that? The government officials in China and some otehr countries see Christianity as dangerous...therfore, anyone caught sharing the Gospel can be jailed and executed. Don't you see that if my belief that homosexuality is wrong adds to the climate in which gays are treated as less than human, then it follows that your belief that Christian fundamentalism (defined here as belief in every word of the Bible) is dangerous adds to the climate in which Christians are executed and jailed because the government thinks they're dangerous? If you can't see that, then you are purposely closing your eyes to it.
This makes me curious; in what way am I not a fundamentalist?
How in the WORLD can you say that no one of any credibility believes in those things? Is it because you don't? How very arrogant of you!
Irvine511 said:
1. no, it is completely different. you've totally misunderstood, and perhaps that's my fault for not communicating better. it's not about believing the Bible, it's about believing in (your) literal interpretation of the Bible to the point where you subdue your rationality and conscience and live your life in strict adherence to that.
Irvine511 said:
2. because i don't think you do subdue your rationality.
Irvine511 said:3. no, it's because science says that this type of literalness in regards to the bible is completely, utterly, and totally scientifically bogus. anyone who knows anything about geology knows that the grand canyon was formed over millions of years, but since some people find things like "science" and "facts" get in the way of their small-minded interpretations of the bible.
it's allegory. it might be true, but it is not fact.