Kevin's Watch

<--- newest member of Furls Fire Fan Club

Fist and Faith wrote:rus, you said it:

rusmeister wrote:I think Andy's point can be best stated that the Christian faith, even in its divided forms, was seen by most, by and large, as a proposition of truth - as something that was actually true, and not merely a personal opinion that one could be free to have or not have. (Of course people were free to not worship and not believe, but most DID believe - in Christianity, specifically - and the laws and society were built around that). THAT is what has changed. For those who still see it to be something true - the actual truth of the nature of the universe - what you see as freedom today is actually a devastating degradation and spiraling into insanity. The freedom to be insane.

I don't see how I could be misinterpreting what you're saying. There's only two sentences. 1) At one time, the majority assumed that the Christian faith was fact, not opinion. 2) The majority no longer believes that the Christian faith is fact, but believes it is opinion, and that is a devastating degradation and spiraling into insanity.

Have I misunderstood what you meant? The freedom to be insane. Insane means seeing the Christian faith as a belief that may or may not be actually true.

Yes, you have misunderstood. I think the trouble lies in your understanding of the phrase "spiraling into insanity". Now this does not mean "actually insane". But it does mean that that is ultimately where it leads. If growing numbers of people here actually deny that there is objective truth, or that any truth can be known on whatever basis (reason, experience, etc), then yes, those people can be said to be literally spiralling into insanity. If the shoe fits...

Now obviously, people who hold a particular faith to actually BE the truth - something that correctly describes the nature of the universe insofar as it is relevant to us - will logically see any departure from that as just as much of a fall into falsehood as people beginning to embrace flat-earth beliefs. A degradation. So to traditional Christians (and here people like Furl's fall out of that understanding - that would be another topic) both degradation and insanity are growing.

In some cases it would be more appropriate to simply say, the freedom to be wrong, which has always existed, and is in no particular danger. The danger is in treating right and wrong as unimportant, one result of which is welcoming wrong equally with right, and ultimately to say that there is no wrong. Once you've gotten to that point, yes, it is insanity - mentally unhealthy.

Loremaster wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Loremaster, if you question the instrument by which you measure anything (by which I mean continually doubt it and any findings that it may produce), then you can make no advances on anything, anywhere. Even your own logic destroys itself.

I disagree. I believe it leads to questioning the path to rigidity in thought, which is the enemy of reason. If one lacks the ability to question what one thinks - that is, metathinking, one becomes caught in self-delusion or absolutism. I strongly believe that there is room for error in every thought, Christianity and scientific theories. No one has right to truth, but every theory has the right to be tested under rigorous methods.

By the way, thanks for the link to Chesterton. I have been reading a lot about him of late and have found him to be a very clever and witty fellow! Some of his comments surpass Wildes', which is no mean feat.

Is it possible to examine one's own eyes? Well, we can examine the eyes of others and draw inferences about our own, and make the reasonable assumption that ours are the same. But we must use our eyes even to do that. We are ALREADY trusting the instrument to tell us something "true". This is the trouble with "metathinking". It can never exclude the ultimate base - the instrument examining the "metathought", which is human thought. As soon as you question your own ability to reason then any conclusion you could possibly come to is already untrustworthy.

Christianity does not claim to be the product of thought at all, but a revelation from the Creator of the Universe about His nature and ours, insofar as we are capable of understanding it. Thus it is not a theory at all. It is a dogmatic statement that claims to be "from Outside" and as such is not subject to scientific "testing".

(On Chesterton) You're very welcome!
I discovered him only a few years ago, and the discovery is as profound as if you discovered Shakespeare today and nobody had ever heard of him. Not only witty (many writers are witty), but humorous (ditto) and humble (uh, not ditto). How many people can you find who combine all three? He was famous in his own time, his death was a cause for national mourning, and I think it is mainly his exclusion from public education (primarily due to his defence of faith - something that is unacceptable in modern schools, and even risky in higher education) that has led to such widespread ignorance about him. Plus, he requires a little brain power to read and follow, kind of like SRD, only even more so (I won't take that comparison very far), so the average reader - a dying breed in our age of entertainment and short attention spans, combined with a growing lack of knowledge of history and prior cultures - increasingly finds him difficult. Heck, the first few books I read, I read at a snail's pace - until I "got his drift". I was forced to think after darn near every sentence.

aliantha wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Ali: I keep saying "apples", and you keep saying "oranges". The non sequitur

That has nothing to do with this discussion -- unless and until you move to create a state religion in America.

is that speaking about absolute truth requires the establishment of a state religion. They are really two entirely separate questions.

I agree. *You're* the one who keeps bringing up apples. Everybody else is talking about oranges.

Precisely. But you cannot understand Christians unless you understand the apples as well as the oranges.
There are two issues that need to be firmly separated. One is (a) what is actual truth, what one believes to be true, and the other (b) is the ability (or lack thereof) to form society around that (perceived) truth. Obviously (a) impacts on (b), but they are not the same thing. Thus, Christianity recognizes that the choice of faith must be voluntary, but that everything possible ought to be done to make that choice as fully-informed as possible, and to establish, to the extent possible, laws of public behavior and decency that support that truth.

A lot of non-Christian fears come from either misunderstanding or false understandings - of which there are real and vocal representatives; thus, the fear is understandable - of what the faith really is, and it is the divisions of Christianity which cause this. Most non-Christians lump us all together, which is a more profound error than lumping Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims, or all Hindus into one basket. Witness (besides me) Andy, who sees authority in Scripture alone, and Furls, who thinks that Church and Tradition are completely unnecessary. Without a thorough knowledge of the causes of all of this, one may have an opinion, but it is not an informed one. Also, the tendency to lump combines nominal believers - those who profess but do not really apply the faith to their lives - with 24/7 believers, who do - so the lumping works to muddy the waters of understanding. In general, I confine my comments to 24/7 Christianity, and exclude nominals.

What I'm saying is that you are mostly talking about (b) without understand the Christian positions on (a). Talking about "a place at the table" is likewise all about (b), and therefore (aside to Andy alone) useless. Here Fist is right and we are losing. But we'll still do everything that we can, peacefully and lawfully, until that is no longer possible. Then it's the catacombs again (for the Christians that hold that faith does matter and that it is something worth dying for). The Faith has "died" (to all appearances) before, www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/ever ... chap-II-vi so it wouldn't be the first time.

rusmeister wrote:Yes, you have misunderstood. I think the trouble lies in your understanding of the phrase "spiraling into insanity". Now this does not mean "actually insane". But it does mean that that is ultimately where it leads. If growing numbers of people here actually deny that there is objective truth, or that any truth can be known on whatever basis (reason, experience, etc), then yes, those people can be said to be literally spiralling into insanity. If the shoe fits...

Now obviously, people who hold a particular faith to actually BE the truth - something that correctly describes the nature of the universe insofar as it is relevant to us - will logically see any departure from that as just as much of a fall into falsehood as people beginning to embrace flat-earth beliefs. A degradation. So to traditional Christians (and here people like Furl's fall out of that understanding - that would be another topic) both degradation and insanity are growing.

In some cases it would be more appropriate to simply say, the freedom to be wrong, which has always existed, and is in no particular danger. The danger is in treating right and wrong as unimportant, one result of which is welcoming wrong equally with right, and ultimately to say that there is no wrong. Once you've gotten to that point, yes, it is insanity - mentally unhealthy.

To your mind, is there a difference between the type of insanity that you are describing, and, say, the type where a growing percentage of people believe there is no such thing as gravity and start leaping off of buildings expecting to fly away, ignoring the evidence of every moment of their lives, as well as the thousands of bodies on the ground below them?

If you do see the difference in these two scenarios as clearly as I do, I don't want you to be angry at the absurdity of the question. I'm truly not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to understand your point. I'm literally stunned at how far apart we are on probably every issue of human experience, and I can't assume anything any longer.

For my part, and I feel pretty confident speaking for everyone else here, I am quite sure there are facts of existence; there are ways of demonstrating various facts; and (although I'm not as confident speaking for anyone else on this one) those who actually don't agree are insane. The gravity thing is a good example.

lucimay wrote:

Cybrweez wrote:Furls, I'm curious, what do you think about Jesus when He says He is the only way to the Father? He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life? Do you believe like John Lennon, that it was made up later? Or rather, the translation is wrong?

What about when He said He would bring hate b/w mother and son, brother and sister, etc?

What about when He said the world would persecute you for believing in Me? Are all these wrong translations?

yeesh. did you really need to piss on furls just to prove some point? what exactly was your post trying to do, pick a fight with her, argue or debate her or just make her look stupid?

and don't say you're just asking an "honest" question either. you're not. YOU feel pissed on because so many people disagree with you.
furls is telling you how to let go of that anger.
listen to her. she one smart lady and one good christian.
lucky for you, rus, and jesus, christians like furls fire still make christianity
attractive to many.

as for the translations...heh...you might wanna look into the history of those translations of your primary document and the changes and edits it's gone through to get to its present form.

have you read the gnostic gospels cyber?
what about when jesus said (gospel of thomas i believe) that the only way women could get into heaven was if they become like men! ? phew! that jesus...he sure did have some tough standards!! lol!! so do we all have to have sex changes to "get into heaven"???

doesn't look like the world is persecuting furls fire. doesn't look to me like she percieves any persecution. (not speaking for her, just giving you my impression of the kind of person she looks like to me from here.)

you're always so defensive and ready to holler about the victimization of christians in this country but i allege that not all christians feel the way you do.
and, tho i respect you for speaking out about percieved injustice when you feel you are seeing it, more often in your posts regarding christianity OR politics, you usually just come off as defensive and, on occasion, a bit arrogant. you're sort of giving christianity a bad name there cyber!

i think there's a better way to make your case that the way you're choosing, cyber. just be less confrontational and absolute.
you get more flies with honey that you do with vinegar don'tcha know.

Lucimay, if I may... (I love the alliteration there!)
Andy is not "trying to piss on Furl's".
Furl's frequently expresses an important tenet of Christianity - compassion, and I see plenty of that from Furl's.

However, Andy is expressing a real view shared by traditional Christianity about things that Christ really said, that the Christian Churches taught for nearly 2,000 years, right up to the 20th century, and many still do, that Furl's ultimately leaves out in her version of Christianity, and by the way, which EXCLUDES THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS. Christ did say those things (in the canonical gospels), and the churches that strive to teach what has always been taught (iow, traditional) do expound on the multifaceted things that Christ said and taught, which cannot be boiled down to simply being nice and having loving feelings towards others, which is what modern understandings of love mostly boil down to. What Andy is kicking against is confusing compassion with love. One can spring from the other, but they are not the same thing.

The second thing with which we must begin is the eradication of soft soap religion, what C. S. Lewis called Christianity and Water. He commented: People today do not want a Heavenly Father but a Heavenly Grandfather, benign and a little senile, who never instructs and never punishes but only gazes on the children and doesn’t care what they do as long as a good time is had by all. If, in fact, that is what we want, then our concept of love needs to be corrected; for love is demanding and exacting. Only kindness would desire your happiness whatever the cost. But love cares for more than your immediate happiness. Love demands the perfecting of the beloved. "Love may, indeed, love the beloved when her beauty is lost: but not because it is lost. Love may forgive all infirmities and love still in spite of them: but love cannot cease to will their removal." We are speaking here of the true essence of agape Love which, perhaps, only God is capable of. God must demand of us the adherence to the rules, then, if He is to exhibit maximum Love toward us.

You asked for a loving God; you have one. The great spirit you so lightly invoked, the 'lord of terrible aspect,' is present: not a senile benevolence that drowsily wishes you to be happy in your own way, not the cold philanthropy of a conscientious magistrate, not the care of a host who feels responsible for the comfort of his guests, but the consuming fire Himself, the Love that made the worlds, persistent as the artists' love for his work and despotic as a man's love for a dog, provident and venerable as a father's love for a child, jealous, inexorable exacting as love between the sexes.

The "Christianity and water", with its senile "heavenly Grandfather" will, of course, be welcomed by all and draw no persecution. Why should it? It demands no change from us.

(I personally think that a more thorough study of the history of the Bible and the Church will lead Andy closer to Orthodoxy, so I won't gainsay your suggestion to study the history. But I'd make the same suggestion to you. If you know about the Gnostic Gospels, REALLY know about them, then you'd know that the Church knew about them 1800 years ago (the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have always known) and that there were reasons why they were excluded from the canon, and things like Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" would strike you only in the way that a person 500 years in the future 'discovering' a 20th century issue of "National Enquirer" would strike people of his time. (Although many might be credulous enough to believe that aliens really did take Elvis away for sexual experiments by that time.))

<patiently> Rus, you are not *listening* to me. I am not even talking about (b).

1. The discussion started out being about how Christians in America feel like they're losing control of the country.
2. The claim was made that America was founded on Christian principles. Not true; the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians.
3. The claim was made that non-Christians want to take the Christians' places at the table. Not true; I proposed a bigger table, to encompass *all* beliefs.

None of that has anything to do with the capital-T Truth, let alone who owns it. It has *everything* to do with fairness, and with equal protection under the Constitution.

Your (a) -- "what is actual truth" -- is irrelevant to the discussion. Your (b) -- "the ability (or lack thereof) to form society around that (perceived) truth" -- refers back to your (a), and so is also irrelevant.

I'm not talking about the thing you want to talk about. I understand that that's frustrating to you. But we don't need to turn every thread in the Close into a referendum on the truth of Christianity.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Yes, you have misunderstood. I think the trouble lies in your understanding of the phrase "spiraling into insanity". Now this does not mean "actually insane". But it does mean that that is ultimately where it leads. If growing numbers of people here actually deny that there is objective truth, or that any truth can be known on whatever basis (reason, experience, etc), then yes, those people can be said to be literally spiralling into insanity. If the shoe fits...

Now obviously, people who hold a particular faith to actually BE the truth - something that correctly describes the nature of the universe insofar as it is relevant to us - will logically see any departure from that as just as much of a fall into falsehood as people beginning to embrace flat-earth beliefs. A degradation. So to traditional Christians (and here people like Furl's fall out of that understanding - that would be another topic) both degradation and insanity are growing.

In some cases it would be more appropriate to simply say, the freedom to be wrong, which has always existed, and is in no particular danger. The danger is in treating right and wrong as unimportant, one result of which is welcoming wrong equally with right, and ultimately to say that there is no wrong. Once you've gotten to that point, yes, it is insanity - mentally unhealthy.

To your mind, is there a difference between the type of insanity that you are describing, and, say, the type where a growing percentage of people believe there is no such thing as gravity and start leaping off of buildings expecting to fly away, ignoring the evidence of every moment of their lives, as well as the thousands of bodies on the ground below them?

If you do see the difference in these two scenarios as clearly as I do, I don't want you to be angry at the absurdity of the question. I'm truly not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to understand your point. I'm literally stunned at how far apart we are on probably every issue of human experience, and I can't assume anything any longer.

For my part, and I feel pretty confident speaking for everyone else here, I am quite sure there are facts of existence; there are ways of demonstrating various facts; and (although I'm not as confident speaking for anyone else on this one) those who actually don't agree are insane. The gravity thing is a good example.

Of course there is a difference. The kind I am describing has a circular logic (again, see GKC's "Orthodoxy, ch 2-3). It does seem to explain things, but anyone on the outside can see that it is wrong. (that's why I thought flat earthers to be a better analogy) The kind you describe means to blithely ignore obvious evidence and do something foolish for no particular reason (which the 'flat-earthers' one doesn't). Obviously, the answers Christianity offers DO NOT ignore the dead bodies. Indeed, it is a first fact that is acknowledged. I could even go off on a tangent about how Christianity sees death. But Christianity speaks precisely about things that cannot be 'demonstrated' (which seems to be a leaning toward seeking scientific proof from Christianity on your part). So your analogy seems to miss the point, which is that the insanity is in understanding the world wrongly on a fundamental level, so that it affects various aspects of our lives. (Seeing sexual relations as a mechanical act primarily for pleasure, rather than the joining of two people into a genuine metaphysical bond for life that no legalistic act of divorce can break is an example of this) The one view encourages frivolous marriage and frivolous divorce; the other insists on monogamous mating for life.
So the practical effects of the view do lead to insanity (again, it means "mentally unhealthy"). In one society, people get married and divorced on a regular basis - children have genetic parents who may or may not 'visit' them and a whole string of temporary 'parents', and there is no such thing as a defined family. People drift from relationship to relationship, and there is little basis for social stability. In the other, the family is a solid and definite unit, the same people both beget and raise the children, which creates a little 'state' that counterweights big business and big government and offers a much more solid basis for stability (and freedom from tyranny, by the way). It insists that vows matter, and should not be lightly made; if (lawfully) made, they should be kept and not broken, regardless of personal feelings or moods. (See that essay I linked to you on the wedding thread. Please.)

Not wanting to seem to ramble, and am confining implications to this visible world in which we live - but just wanted to offer an example of the practical impact that is analogous to the impact in your own analogy (ouch!).

aliantha wrote:<patiently> Rus, you are not *listening* to me. I am not even talking about (b).

1. The discussion started out being about how Christians in America feel like they're losing control of the country.
2. The claim was made that America was founded on Christian principles. Not true; the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians.
3. The claim was made that non-Christians want to take the Christians' places at the table. Not true; I proposed a bigger table, to encompass *all* beliefs.

None of that has anything to do with the capital-T Truth, let alone who owns it. It has *everything* to do with fairness, and with equal protection under the Constitution.

Your (a) -- "what is actual truth" -- is irrelevant to the discussion. Your (b) -- "the ability (or lack thereof) to form society around that (perceived) truth" -- refers back to your (a), and so is also irrelevant.

I'm not talking about the thing you want to talk about. I understand that that's frustrating to you. But we don't need to turn every thread in the Close into a referendum on the truth of Christianity.

I'm sorry. I thought the thread was about "nonsense about Christianity".

Your point 2 has a number of counter-arguments that we could probably waste a lot of time on and I have stated that your point 3 is impossible to discuss without examining my (a). You can only have conflict, not agreement otherwise. If your opponents in negotiations say something is vital and you say it is not, then the result must be conflict, not peaceful resolution. In such cases, you may have war, but you cannot have peaceful coexistence.

rusmeister wrote:But Christianity speaks precisely about things that cannot be 'demonstrated' (which seems to be a leaning toward seeking scientific proof from Christianity on your part).

Well, certainly it's true that, since I don't have any other kind of proof, or even evidence, for Christinaity, I insist on the scientific kind if anyone wants to discuss the possibility of Christianity being the "actual truth." Which is why I won't bother discussing that.

However, what I'm discussing is the definition of insanity. If I understand you, there are various types of insanity. The kind where people jump off of buildings because they expect to fly is not the same kind as the guy who thinks he's Napoleon, right? And so far, I'm with you. But you have a type of insanity that is caused by not believing in Christianity. Having some sort of chemical injected into me can make me insane, yet the chemical is not the insanity. That seems to be what you're saying; not believing in Christianity is not insanity, but it leads to it. Perhaps I understand you?

And perhaps your "practical effects" are the reason you feel that way. Of course, if I'm understanding you up to this point, we're right back where we've always been, from the conversation where you insisted that only your system of belief can adequately answer the questions that we agree all people ask. The questions about meaning. Despite the fact that many others have answered these questions in very different ways, and lived lives that we have no reason to suspect were not as good in any way as yours, you insist their answers are not adequate, proving Christianity's correctness.

Now we get to the specific practical effect of marriage. Is it possible for two non-Christians to be as happily married as any two true Christians, and raise a perfectly loving, happy, productive, healthy family? A family that, aside from not believing in true Christianity, is indistinguishable from the Christian one?

I would also question the mental and emotional well-being of the "definite unit" whose individual members stay together against personal feelings of "I wish I was not with this person, but I will stay in this relationship because God wants it that way." Such a marriage will not demonstrate the kind of love for a spouse that I want my children to see. I think there's a better chance that children who grow up in such an environment will not see a problem with settling in their relationships if that's the kind of relationship they grew up seeing.

rusmeister wrote:Seeing sexual relations as a mechanical act primarily for pleasure, rather than the joining of two people into a genuine metaphysical bond for life that no legalistic act of divorce can break is an example of this

If a legalistic act of divorce was agreed upon, then the genuine metaphysical bond for life is broken. Which would mean that being a marriage of true Christians did not guarantee such a bond. Unless that simply proves that it was not a marriage of true Christians.

(And maybe we could identify true Christians by such means? They do A, but not B; they do C, but not D; etc? True Christians never veer from certain paths?)

Screw tradition-it seems like a certain person would rather divide us than attempt to unite us. Furls follows a very blessed interpretation of Christianity as far as I'm concerned and orthodoxs are absolute fools to separate themselves from her. The only thing I'm getting from said person is "exclusive" ivory tower semantics. This is, obviously, a purposeful thread drift that that person won't understand, but here goes:

I like Hunter S. Thompson a hell of a lot more as a writer than Sartre-because he had the guts to get directly involved in the human condition. That's it, I'm done with this-

Danlo wrote:Screw tradition-it seems like a certain person would rather divide us than attempt to unite us.

That's how religious debates always end. You gotta love it.

Dromond wrote:Recently, in a locked topic in the tank, Cyberweez said(in an unrelated conversation) that he has to put up with 'nonsense' about Christianity in the close...

So to spark discussion, I ask: What 'nonsense' do you mean? Cyberweez, or anyone, of course. What has been said by 'Watch members that is 'nonsense'?
...
Examples?

Umm, okay, so I haven't read the full "baggage" of the thread in between this first post and my response, but it does look like this thread's got a lot of baggage of its own by now. :-/

Dromond, thanks for asking a question like this, (if you sincerely meant it, that is) cause I have a few things that bother me which I wouldn'tve aired otherwise.

My "examples" aren't exactly specific words or posts, but tendencies. I think that all of the following are problems both for both sides of the "Christianity issue." (Though sometimes for different/complimentary reasons.) So I guess I see the "nonsense" more as a dynamic between people who participate in conversations whenever the topic of Christianity comes up.

1. Tendency of people to "play lightly" with convictions that are close to others' hearts.

Face it, IF there's really a God who made us all, knows and cares about the inmost parts of our being, and wants to be involved in our personal lives - changing WHO we are, and who wants take us to live with Him in eternal splendor... (I know, I know, for most of us, that's "a big if") that's the biggest, most personal issue there is. And even if there isn't, personal morals, philosophy, and ideology are STILL probably the deepest, most central part of to who we are as humans!

As I see it, most of the people on this Forum who claim themselves as Christians open themselves up alot. (We often tend to be too serious, I think.) Of everyone else, some number of people are really open about their personal convictions and some just enjoy arguing and heckling but don't put their own beliefs on the line very much.

Now you could say that the problem lies in Christians for putting too much out there - and sometimes we really do. Personally, I have all sorts of things that get me excited about Jesus that I'd LOVE to tell people on the Watch. But I probably won't unless I think people actually want to hear. I often intentionally edit my posts to make them shorter and go less deep - taking out things that are personal, because then I "lose" less if someone pukes all over me.

2. Tendency of people to not "really listen" to each other when talking about spirituality.

In discussions on spiritual topics, people tend to be waaaaaaaaaay more interested in justifying their own views than in listening to what the other person says. And I mean waaaaaaaaaayy, waaaaaaaay more interested in justifying their own views than in listening to the other person. This is definitely a fault engaged in by Christians and everybody else, but it just drives me BONKERS.

3. Fighting enemies who are not in the room.

(your dad, your mom, that atheist who one-upped you, the conservative politician whose choices you hate, God)

4. Confusion/blurring between the individual, his/her faith, his/her ideas and reasonings about God, and his/her God.

This one is really complicated. Some of it is actually justified though, I think.

great post Lina! i would do the clappy emo but i've been warned that it makes me look like a cheerleader!

but i appreciate the big picture aspect of your post and how you constructed and convey the heart of the matter.

thanks. i'm absolutely not that organized in my thought. nicely done.

Prebe wrote:

Danlo wrote:Screw tradition-it seems like a certain person would rather divide us than attempt to unite us.

That's how religious debates always end. You gotta love it.

Unlike other debates? No, you're probably right, only religious debates. Thanks for popping in Prebe.

rus, thanks for a good post about my question to Furls. It was a serious question (Lucimay, you once commented on my posts being defensive and accusatory, that's probably why you read them in that light. I'd hold up your response tho as accusatory). Its pretty plain why Jesus said He would divide, b/c He said He is the only way to the Father, He is the Truth. Do you know what happens when someone believes that? It pisses people off. Enough posts from this thread alone can show that. So, that's why I'm genuinely curious about Furls' thoughts on the matter.

BTW, that anger towards Christian elitism/exclusivism, or whatever, where does it come from?

Cybrweez wrote:Unlike other debates? No, you're probably right, only religious debates. Thanks for popping in Prebe.

Yes, unlike most other debates. In most other debates mutual consensus can often be reached when all available facts have been reviewed, because you have a set of generally accepted tools (logic and scientific method) to adhere to.

Religion is (oddly enough) not as axiomatic when seen across the board, that is. Right now for instance, we have - what 5 or 6 christians? - in this little debate right here that can't even agree on what being a christian is.

Why? Because all denominations of any religion (that is NOT sola scriptura) is based on intepretation. An interpretation that is highly subjective.

Cybrweez wrote:BTW, that anger towards Christian elitism/exclusivism, r whatever, where does it come from?

I imagine it comes from one of the best people any of us know being told she's wrong, or inadequate, or possibly even dangerous (in the sense that she might lure others away from true Christianity). Especially when part of that opinion is based on a definition of love that I can agree with, but which is so far below the way Furls lives that it's idiotic to so much as mention it in the same paragraph as her name.

For myself, I don't get angry at these things being said about her. I just chuckle, and picture her doing the same. Since I don't believe in the versions of Christianity that any of you do, I'm not worried about her going to Hell, or being separated from God, or whatever anybody's particular beliefs say will happen to her for not being the right kind of Christian. And if any of you are right, and she is going to suffer whatever consequence anybody believes she will, then that God is a moron. Nobody in their right mind would reject Tracie. I've posted this quote from a fantasy novel a couple times before - once in response to you, in fact - and it applies to this conversation. There's a fantasy book, The Kundalini Equation, by Steven Barnes, where one character is doing a lot of searching, questioning, etc, about life, God, etc. During an appearance, a woman in the audience asked, "Mr. Patanjal, how does it feel to know that you are going to burn in hell?" And he answered:

"Madame, the divine force which you believe in and the one in which I believe are obviously two different beings. If in a sincere quest for understanding and knowledge I have erred, I am deeply sorry, and await a sign from the Almighty that will teach me the error of my ways. I simply believe in the virtues of sincere intellectual curiosity. An eagerness to use the mind and feelings that God himself gave me to inquire into mysteries rather than merely accept the explanation othat other men have passed down through the years. If for this I will be cast into fires everlasting, then God is indeed the malign thug of which Mark Twain wrote, and his hell could certainly be no more insufferable than his heaven."

(Also, Tracie and I, and a whole lot of other wonderful people I know, will be together, so we'll have our own Heaven. )

Wow, I've never been called "dangerous" before. Kinda cool actually

Huggles to Luci, ali and Fisty

Andy and rus...

Well, I think I'll start with this notion that I am confusing compassion with love, and that it's only one tenet of Christianity. First of all, I know that love is not just warm and fuzzy feelings. It is hard, it is devastating, and at times, it has nearly broken me. But I keep doing it. Love, in all it's facets is so easy for me to give, and yet, it is so damn torturous at times that sometimes I feel like just quitting what I do and go to sleep. Second of all, I know the complete and glorious love of Jesus Christ. I know what He sacrificed for me and for all God's children. And the love I feel from Him, it is utter and glorious. It is Him that gives me the strength to keep going with my work, for it is His work that I do. Every day, every hour, every minute of my existence. So, this "tough" love of which you speak? Believe me, I know love is not all warm and fuzzy.

Now, Andy...

Was the John Lennon quote the only one you saw? I quoted that because I thought it was relevant to the discussion at hand. But did you also notice that I quoted Mother Teresa, who is a saint in all sense of the word. Anyway, to answer your question, yes. I do believe that alot in the Bible is lost to translation and to omittance. And is it your contention that because I do not feel persecuted or have not been persecuted I am not a true Christain? If so, then, in light of this topic's title, that is utter nonsense. Being a true Christain means following the ways of Christ. It means living the path set forth by Christ. It means accepting His Grace into your heart. I do all of those things. What I do NOT do, however, is judge the people I know who do not believe the same as I do. And I do not believe that they will burn in a fiery pit either. Because I believe that at the moment of passing, when the last breath is exhaled and the soul departs the body, that ALL will see the light and glory of Christ and go to Him willingly. And no, I did not read that in the Bible, I did not hear at a church sermon. I know it, because it has been shown to me.

And yes, Jesus is the Way and the Truth, in all senses. But, He is also Love and He is also Patience and He is also Forgiveness. My brother met a man once, who swore he was going to hell for one of the most heinous sins imaginable, one night, while this man was driving drunk, he hit a tree and killed his family. This man insisted that he deserved hell.

From my brother's journal entry dated March 27, 1996:

Stephen wrote:He eyed me carefully as his voice trailed off. “Scared you, didn’t I?” He asked into my silence. “No. Not much scares me.” I said back.

“Not even death?”

“No. Why fear death? I think most people fear the how of it, not the actual passing itself. I know the how of mine will be through pain. I fear that, can’t deny it. But, I don’t fear you, not at all. I hear voices in my dreams too.” I said to him.

“Well, I fear it. My life, let’s just say it’s been nothing to brag to God about. (I will never forget this next statement.) I don’t think God appreciates His gifts being thrown back in His face. And I threw them back, so hard, that if He was standing before me when I did it, He would have fallen under the force. People go to hell for things like that.”

“Maybe that is why He sent you to me, to help you see that they don’t.”

“And how would you know? How is it that you can say I won’t go to hell?”

“I really don’t know, John. I just go by my faith and my belief. And my belief is that our God is not a vengeful God, but a loving one. He doesn’t cast down His children just because they fail themselves, or throw His gifts back at him. Where do you think forgiveness comes from? Besides, looks to me like you’ve punished yourself sufficiently.”

My brother lived and walked in the Light of Christ. I live and walk in the Light of Christ. My days are consumed by His Presence in them. And when I pass, I will basque in the Glory of Him, because that is His promise to me and to all. Even those who have a difficult time finding Him. They must find their own way. And if asked, I will help all I can to find Him.

Here's another quote:

“The Lord longs to be gracious to you; He rises to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for Him!” --Isaiah 30:18 NIV

And if you doubt my Christianity then you really have no clue who I am at all.

Oh Eric, I believe, when the time of our passings come, you and I will wade together in the Jordan with Stephen and Isaiah, by the cottage, and drink from the Well. And we will be surrounded by those who have gone before us and the Light and Joy of Heaven.

Cybrweez wrote: BTW, that anger towards Christian elitism/exclusivism, or whatever, where does it come from?

My "anger", if you want to call it that, comes from many things. It comes from Christians deciding their viewpoints are better than anyone else's, such that those viewpoints are forced into our government. It comes from being told that my word is not good enough if I don't swear to a being I don't believe exists. It comes from my uncle, who once he became a minister was suddenly better than the rest of us and was going to heaven while we were all going to hell. It comes from today, while standing in line for a Jamba Juice with my 21 month old son, being handed an invitation to a church event tomorrow, without even being asked if I go to church or not. It comes from being told that God is Good, when historically God has been used to justify the torture and slaughter of innocents time and time again. It comes from being told that God is Just, when God has been used to deny women equal rights in the world. It comes from being told in this very discussion board that I would do well to convert, because obviously since I am a non-believer, my marriage must be a shambles, and my wife so bitterly disappointed in me that only by converting would I do our marriage justice. It comes from a co-worker saying to me, and I quote, "Wow, Rob, you're such a smart guy, one of the smartest guys I know, so it makes me wonder how you can not believe in God" (the answer to that should be obvious). My list goes on.

But mostly, it comes from people who won't give me the courtesy or respect to allow me the right to my own opinion about the Truth, simply because they believe they are right and everyone else on this planet is insane to not agree with them. Even though I will give them the courtesy and respect to believe what they want to believe, and not ram my own humanstic beliefs down their throats at every opportunity.

The real truth is I am not angry at all about it. I married a Catholic woman and attend Church every Sunday. I am content and happy in my current belief in how the world operates. I live my life according to what many would call Christian values, but only because I try to do the right thing in life for myself and for my family. The inner workings of the Christian mind and their desire to portray themselves as victims, in spite of a history of being the victimizers, are actually irrelevant to my personal happiness.

The only reason I involve myself in this thread at all is because of the haughtiness of people like Rus, who choose to call me "insane", for having the balls to think for myself and live happily doing it. Frankly, in my view, what Rus calls degradation towards insanity, I look at as moving towards clarity. In my opinion, of course. Which I am entitled to, thank God.

rdhopeca wrote:It comes from being told that God is Good, when historically God has been used to justify the torture and slaughter of innocents time and time again. It comes from being told that God is Just, when God has been used to deny women equal rights in the world.

However, none of how God has been used proves anything about God being good or evil. And of course you're being selective in your examples, since God has also been used to justify good actions.