Silly Christofacsists on CNN burning Harry Potter books

[80sU2isBest]

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.

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.

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.

 

[financeguy]

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?

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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"

 

[financeguy]

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'.

 

[80sU2isBest]

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."

 

[melon]

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

 

[80sU2isBest]

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]

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. "

 

[XHendrix24]

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.

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[80sU2isBest]

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]

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?

 

[financeguy]

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.

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[financeguy]

I can certainly name 5.

But I won't.

 

[80sU2isBest]

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.

And I wasn't slamming on you, anitram. You siad that this name calling was in response to other name-calling by the right. I think you're wrong; there is much more slamming of Christians going on in these forums than slamming of Muslims.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I can certainly name 5.

But I won't.

I won't name the ones in my mind either, but all 5 are regulars. They are not the fly-by-night posters that disappear after a couple of posts.

 

[anitram]

And I wasn't slamming on you, anitram. You siad that this name calling was in response to other name-calling by the right. I think you're wrong;

How am I wrong when the person who named this thread just told me that this is EXACTLY why he'd chosen the term?

 

[financeguy]

I won't name the ones in my mind either, but all 5 are regulars.

One is me right? You can tell me I promise will take it on board and won't be offended.

 

[financeguy]

To the two people who posted saying they thought the discussion was s**t, laughable, or whatever, well all I can say is they have a point but it does seem that certain kinds of issues are hot button topics and attract a lot of discussion here, others are less likely to attract discussion, that's all I can say, there's not really much point in posting a thread that attracts 2 responses and just dies after a day

Looking at some recent threads, Dreadsox started one on Gitmo, Shart1780 started one on Live Aid, Hotpepper started one on Zimbabwe, I myself started one on 'Rovegate' - all important issues yet none of these threads seemed to have generated that many responses.

 

[80sU2isBest]

How am I wrong when the person who named this thread just told me that this is EXACTLY why he'd chosen the term?

Well, alright then, you are not wrong. However, the person who told you this is wrong if he thinks that more insults are made against Muslims in this forum than against Christians.

 

[80sU2isBest]

One is me right? You can tell me I promise will take it on board and won't be offended.

Of course one of them is you. You did it in the title and first post of this thread.

 

[indra]

Looking at some recent threads, Dreadsox started one on Gitmo, Shart1780 started one on Live Aid, Hotpepper started one on Zimbabwe, I myself started one on 'Rovegate' - all important issues yet none of these threads seemed to have generated that many responses.

Well this thread is great fun and silly and kind of mindless. Perfect for summer.

 

[indra]

I won't name the ones in my mind either, but all 5 are regulars. They are not the fly-by-night posters that disappear after a couple of posts.

I'm so hoping one of them is me. If not, I'm going to have to have a serious discussion with myself.

 

[financeguy]

I'm so hoping one of them is me.

I don't think you need to ask, do ya?

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'm so hoping one of them is me. If not, I'm going to have to have a serious discussion with myself.

Actually, you were not one of the people I was thinking of. While you have insulted me personally, I don't recall any times that you have insulted Conservative Christianity.

 

[financeguy]

Ok, so Indra's not just in the bad books, but in the very bad books.

What happened to forgiveness an' all that?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Ok, so Indra's not just in the bad books, but in the very bad books.

What happened to forgiveness an' all that?

You've got a good point.

When someone apologizes, I forgive. When they don't, it takes me a little longer to do so.

However, that's no excuse. I'm supposed to forgive even if I don't get an apology.

So, I'm going to forgive and try not to think about it anymore or bring it up.

In the meantime, I owe Indra an apology for not forgiving her sooner, so I do. I apologize, and I mean it.

 

[Halifax]

I like to drink my own piss.