Bible Study

[Choobus]

thomastwo wrote

What I was referring to was your vile inanity. Case proven.

Clearely, as a follower of zombie jesus the fart god who, being his own dad, must have somehow impregnated his own mother, you have a low threshold for "proven". All you have been able to prove is that you're a wanker who believes in some bullshit. What amazing feat will you tackle next, prove that you stink of fish?

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

I don't have any numbers other than the research I quoted. You're the one claiming the research is over-stated so presumably you have some data to back up your claim?

Dude, I am not the one quarreling over others' claims to be Christians; you are.

Now, if the statisticians compiling the data on Christian populations include folks whom you and Lily reserve the right to throw out (such as Mormons; Jehovah's Witnesses; mean-spiirted weirdos like Fred Phelps; practicing homosexuals who claim to be Christians; Christians who also believe in psychics, just to name a very few) well, something's gotta give.

Either these folks are Christians, as they claim to be, or the numbers of folks being counted as Christians are inflated. Common sense.

[Choobus]

Do people who are considered to be mentally retarded (or whatever the correct term is these days) automatically qualify as christians or do they also have to shit themselves state that they are in fact christologists?

[ghoulslime]

Choobus wrote

Do people who are considered to be mentally retarded (or whatever the correct term is these days) automatically qualify as christians or do they also have to shit themselves state that they are in fact christologists?

They are interchangeable terms. A turd by any other name would have as much corn.

[calpurnpiso]

Choobus wrote

Do people who are considered to be mentally retarded (or whatever the correct term is these days) automatically qualify as christians or do they also have to shit themselves state that they are in fact christologists?

All mentally retarded folks as well as schizophrenics are ipso facto True Christians... no question about it.

These neurologically challenged folks accept as reality the purest, sweetest, energizing, bucolic, peace inducing, & tedium saving mental imago impact synaptic apparition of a christ. We must abide by the definition of a Christ, which is nothing more than a savior anointed sky daddy that sees it ALL. This is what a CHRIST is so.....

A Christ is:

Grease spot on the wall that talks, the ubiquitus alien brain implants to monitor thoughts, the Teddy Bear that gives advise, the penis that answers back when curse at for sleeping, the radiant cloud that appear suddenly interrupting our thoughts, the virgin that cries blood, the cross shaped spot that won't go away, the trembling hand that stops shaking during prayer, the hovering angel with a hard on interrupting your dreams, the catholic priest whose hands bleed making you fear sin, the face in MArs that resembles Christ, the masturbating monk whose hairy balls you dream of shaving, the UFO green man that resembles christ making you hard, those who believe in Buddha Allah Muhammad Odin Zeus & Ahuramazda saviors in their own right that are nothing more than Christs...

So, ALL of those NUTS are TRUE CHRISTIANS who Lily in her status epilepticus Christ-psychosis ambivalence FAILS to define as such.

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

Many Christians do know what the Nicene Creed is and recite it as part of services once a week. Most evangelical non-denomination protestants don't know what the creed is but would have been through it at some point when joining the church.

Yes, t2, many Christians do know what the Nicene Creed is and recite it as part of services once a week. I never argued diffently. But are you aware that some Christians (perhaps, many) do not? Never once when I attended church as a child was I ever required to recite the Nicene Creed. Ever.

Of course it was a part of official church doctrine, but that did not stop a lot of Christians I knew then and still know now from seeing the alleged Father, Son and the Holy Spirit as distinct entities in practice. Indeed, a lot of church-going Christians with whom I am acquainted don't seem to have a tenth of the understanding of Christian theology as you, Lily and many of the folks here do. I've had these discussions with some of these lifelong Christians, and they don't have a clue how someone could be God, Jesus and a holy spirit at the same time.

The main thing they know is they don't want to believe that Jesus Christ does not exist. It's not a tenable thought to them.

For some background, I will share with you that the services I attended as a child (including Sunday school) were far less intellectually rigorous than what you and Lily boast about here. Indeed, the attempt at indoctrinating me as a child (and the other members of my church, including the adults) was far more dependent upon stirring emotion through music and sermons which contained easily digestible aphorisms that sounded profound when delivered by a gifted orator and, yes, showman.

That's the Christian tradition I come from. And the folks who are still in it, still practice the same way. It's not an intellectual exercise for them.

Years ago, I was told by an evangelical minister hoping to recruit me to become a member of his church that Christianity is not an intellectual exercise. One simply gives in to "the spirit." That is, one literally lets go of one's doubts and questions by yeilding to the "internal logic" of the premise: Jesus is. Why? Because the alternative is too bleak.

thomastwo wrote

I think your definition of Christianity is lacking in specifics. For example does a Christian need to believe in God? The Holy Spirit? Salvation?

As I said, t2, think what you want. I'm merely telling you that I know many people who are Christians who not bound up in the rigors of intellectually justifying their faith. Do they profess to believe in "God, the Holy Spirit and Salvation?" Of course. That's part of the package if you want to be rewarded. But do all the Christians I know share your exact understanding of what these things mean? From the conversations I've had, I would have to say no.

thomastwo wrote

Above you were defining what Christians were. And now you are not? I'm confused.

Correction there, tommy: I'm not defining what a Christian is. That's not my place. I was merely telling you that there are folks professing to be Christians who do not subscribe to the limits of your definition of what a Christian is. You are the one who kicked Fred Phelps out of the fold, not I.

thomastwo wrote

I'm not asking you to define a Christian at all. I'm just telling you what is the commonly accepted definition by the majority of Christian denominations. That's the definition I choose to use.

Look, I am aware, for instance, that the Catholic Church-- the largest Christian denomination on the planet-- officially embraces all those who accept the Nicene Creed as fellow Christians. I am not arguing against that. Do I know what the majority of the 33,000 to 38,000 Christian denominations have to say about who is and who is not a Christian? No. I suspect you don't either.

My simple point is that the religion is malleable. The evidence: the wide variety of people who claim to be members of the fold, whether or not you accept them as members. I really don't care what your definition of a Christian is, nor am I offering you mine. I am letting the professed Christians speak for themselves about what it is they claim to be and then noting the incredible variety of beliefs and practices among them. That's all.

thomastwo wrote

I'm taking it up with you because you are the one making the claim. I think your claim is wrong. Maybe you have some evidence?

The evidence is all over this forum if you really want it. If you want to argue with me about it, sorry. As I said, I don't want to play that game with you.

thomastwo wrote

If you want to make a claim back it up with evidence or don't bother making the claim. You accuse me of obfuscating!

Yes, I accuse you of obfuscating; you're doing it right now. I don't want to get into a discussion with you about the proper nuances in judging the hate-filled rhetoric of a crazy old man who is very open in his hatred for gay people and a crazy woman who thinks she loves gay people because she couches her hate-filled rhetoric in a theology that you "might" find more acceptable. That's a bullshit discussion. And I'm not having it with you.

I said what I had to say on the topic and stand by it 100 percent. If that's not good enough for you, tough.

[Choobus]

Tommy boy is as fake as all godidiots. His veneer of civility is but an easily broken hymen in yet another cunt.

[thomastwo]

Choobus wrote

Clearely, as a follower of zombie jesus the fart god who, being his own dad, must have somehow impregnated his own mother, you have a low threshold for "proven". All you have been able to prove is that you're a wanker who believes in some bullshit. What amazing feat will you tackle next, prove that you stink of fish?

Keep it coming. Great demonstration of your intelligence and class.

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

Yes, t2, many Christians do know what the Nicene Creed is and recite it as part of services once a week. I never argued diffently. But are you aware that some Christians (perhaps, many) do not? Never once when I attended church as a child was I ever required to recite the Nicene Creed. Ever.

Of course it was a part of official church doctrine, but that did not stop a lot of Christians I knew then and still know now from seeing the alleged Father, Son and the Holy Spirit as distinct entities in practice. Indeed, a lot of church-going Christians with whom I am acquainted don't seem to have a tenth of the understanding of Christian theology as you, Lily and many of the folks here do. I've had these discussions with some of these lifelong Christians, and they don't have a clue how someone could be God, Jesus and a holy spirit at the same time.

The main thing they know is they don't want to believe that Jesus Christ does not exist. It's not a tenable thought to them.

For some background, I will share with you that the services I attended as a child (including Sunday school) were far less intellectually rigorous than what you and Lily boast about here. Indeed, the attempt at indoctrinating me as a child (and the other members of my church, including the adults) was far more dependent upon stirring emotion through music and sermons which contained easily digestible aphorisms that sounded profound when delivered by a gifted orator and, yes, showman.

That's the Christian tradition I come from. And the folks who are still in it, still practice the same way. It's not an intellectual exercise for them.

Years ago, I was told by an evangelical minister hoping to recruit me to become a member of his church that Christianity is not an intellectual exercise. One simply gives in to "the spirit." That is, one literally lets go of one's doubts and questions by yeilding to the "internal logic" of the premise: Jesus is. Why? Because the alternative is too bleak.

I also grew up in such a church and rejected the Christianity that was presented to me. But when I became an adult I spent time investigating Christianity and developing my own understanding. I also ran into a bunch of Christians that actually seemed to have found something that made a difference to their lives. That seems like a better approach than just rejecting the childhood version.

There is definitely an element of the protestant christian church that is determinedly anti-intellectual. I think it's a shame and that it leads to the kind of information shock that many of you here experienced when you were exposed to other ideas. I don't think there is anything inherent in the Christian faith that requires such an approach.

Irreligious wrote

As I said, t2, think what you want. I'm merely telling you that I know many people who are Christians who not bound up in the rigors of intellectually justifying their faith. Do they profess to believe in "God, the Holy Spirit and Salvation?" Of course. That's part of the package if you want to be rewarded. But do all the Christians I know share your exact understanding of what these things mean? From the conversations I've had, I would have to say no.

I'm sure that's true and I don't think its a problem. Christianity can be understood at many different levels. Really the only thing that is required is the ability to understand that you're sinful, that Jesus saves you and that you repent. Not everybody wants to look at what backs that up. But some do and if they do there is plenty to consider.

Irreligious wrote

Correction there, tommy: I'm not defining what a Christian is. That's not my place. I was merely telling you that there are folks professing to be Christians who do not subscribe to the limits of your definition of what a Christian is. You are the one who kicked Fred Phelps out of the fold, not I.

I understand. I guess I'm just trying to convince you of the reasonableness of my definition.

Irreligious wrote

Look, I am aware, for instance, that the Catholic Church-- the largest Christian denomination on the planet-- officially embraces all those who accept the Nicene Creed as fellow Christians. I am not arguing against that. Do I know what the majority of the 33,000 to 38,000 Christian denominations have to say about who is and who is not a Christian? No. I suspect you don't either.

My simple point is that the religion is malleable. The evidence: the wide variety of people who claim to be members of the fold, whether or not you accept them as members. I really don't care what your definition of a Christian is, nor am I offering you mine. I am letting the professed Christians speak for themselves about what it is they claim to be and then noting the incredible variety of beliefs and practices among them. That's all.

Got it.

[Choobus]

thomastwo wrote

Keep it coming. Great demonstration of your intelligence and class.

Eat my shit you cunt

[Choobus]

thomastwo wrote

But when I became an adult I spent time investigating Christianity and developing my own understanding.

Definitely not a waste of time.....

[dogpet]

Does anyone ever write christian when entering their religion on a form? Most forms I've seen in England the people have stated C of E, mainly because that's what school they went to. It's likely an automatic response without thought & not based on any sort of adherence, yet they are all counted.

[Sternwallow]

dogpet wrote

Does anyone ever write christian when entering their religion on a form? Most forms I've seen in England the people have stated C of E, mainly because that's what school they went to. It's likely an automatic response without thought & not based on any sort of adherence, yet they are all counted.

Interesting question. I have not seen many forms with a religion box that were filled in by other people. For my part, when I am asked to fill in such a form:

Religious Affiliation: The Only One That Is True

[VladTheImpaler]

Bible History #1 (Sodom & Gomorrah)

[Irreligious]

thomastwo wrote

I also grew up in such a church and rejected the Christianity that was presented to me. But when I became an adult I spent time investigating Christianity and developing my own understanding. I also ran into a bunch of Christians that actually seemed to have found something that made a difference to their lives. That seems like a better approach than just rejecting the childhood version.

I shared my background in order to illustrate Christianity's malleability. That is, to show, as I think you once put it, that the religion is "all things to all people," or something along those lines. In other words, there are vastly different approaches to Christianity. At the opposite ends of the spectrum, one can either jump through intellectual hoops to make the religion seem plausible or one can just submit to the emotion of it.

I long ago figured out that the bottom-line point to the exercise is an attempt to fill in the gaps in our knowledge as it relates to humanity's imponderable questions and to provide emotional assurances that this life is not all there is.

thomastwo wrote

There is definitely an element of the protestant christian church that is determinedly anti-intellectual. I think it's a shame and that it leads to the kind of information shock that many of you here experienced when you were exposed to other ideas. I don't think there is anything inherent in the Christian faith that requires such an approach.

I gotta admit that it is shocking to witness what I consider the intellectual dishonesty of otherwise intelligent people succumbing to the idea that they can know what is inherently unknowable. From my own observation, Christianity (like all religions, presumably) still requires suspension of disbelief, perhaps, most especially for those who are intellectually inclined.

By the way, I don't find that most Roman Catholics are terribly intellectual, either. I know there are intellectual Catholics out there (just as there are also intellectual Baptists and other Protestants), but Roman Catholicism also appeals to strong emotion for the multitudes who are decidedly not of that bent. The numerous alleged Virgin Mary sightings on grilled cheese sandwiches and garage doors (as just one example) is evidence that it's not just for those who spend eight years in seminary, obviously.

I've attended a few Masses in my lifetime, and where the approach in my old church was to get people "fired up," so to speak, with flashy music and rousing sermons, the opposite approach was evident in the Catholic Mass, which sought to calm folks down with somber hymns and quiet homilies. Many other Protestant churches use this tack, as well.

Again, my larger point here is that Christianity obviously works on a multitude of levels for those who are willing or compelled to suspend disbelief, but suspension of disbelief is still the most critical aspect of the exercise of believing, whether one succumbs to Christianity's various emotional appeals or one has the stamina to intellectualize it into plausibility. Ultimately, there's a goal here for the believers, and that's to reduce uncertainty and to avoid our seeming inevitable fate: Oblivion, the spectre of which is a heavy burden for us fragile and hyper-aware beings, I know.

thomastwo wrote

I'm sure that's true and I don't think its a problem. Christianity can be understood at many different levels. Really the only thing that is required is the ability to understand that you're sinful, that Jesus saves you and that you repent. Not everybody wants to look at what backs that up. But some do and if they do there is plenty to consider.

Check it out, t2: I don't need a theology to tell me that I'm flawed. I accept that as a given. What I don't accept is the claim that I need to apologize to the cosmos or "repent" merely for being human. I try to take responsibility for my actions, but I do not apologize to anyone or anything for my nature. I didn't create it, after all. All I can do, to the best of my abilities, is work with what I was naturally endowed to be.

thomastwo wrote

I understand. I guess I'm just trying to convince you of the reasonableness of my definition.

It's a vain endeavor, t2. We have vastly different perspectives as it regards some aspects of reality. Seriously, I don't begrudge you your version of it, provided that I am not forced to be held captive to it. That's a mighty tall order, hence, our perpetual conflicts.

More and more, I realize that your reality is dependent upon others succumbing to it and that is truly problematic. I don't see an easy resolution for us.