DescentBB

to which Birdseye replied...I will no longer...he said it best.

Zuruch wrote:If I'm offended by something, which I never really am, I CHANGE THE CHANNEL.

Which is, essentially, what they are doing. Part of freedom is the freedom to not do business with people who promote ideas you don't approve of. It's censorship when the Pat, Dobson and that crowd attempt to get the government to shut down programming they don't approve of. It's just free market when they decide to boycott something they don't like. And since, most of the time, the boycott just draws media attention and increases the shows viewership, it's probably not something the station is really worried about. They probably sent free promotional copies of this show to Dobson just to make certain he noticed it.

Birdseye wrote:I also think you, like many non-christians do to you, are grossly oversimplifying Voodoo which is something you probably haven't spent much time genuinely trying to understand.

Guilty as charged. I can sum up everything I know about Voodoo in a few sentences.

They are monotheist who believe in one God who created everything, but does not interact with his own creation. God created lots of "spirits" to run the world, these spirits may be good or bad, and those are what the Vodun interacts with. Also, Voodoo priests came up with the really cool, though horribly evil, and actually works puffer fish based poison that creates honest to goodness Zombies. (Sometimes)

The above, short as it is, is not only over simplified, but probably full of errors as well. I picked Voodoo because I knew it would hit Christian hot buttons. I wasn't intending detailed discussion or critique of the religion. I'm not educated enough on the topic to do that fairly.

Birdseye wrote:Speak in your church and in your household or community, but your faith has no place in centers of education.

I'm certain you meant to say in centers of PUBLIC education.

Kilarin

Speak in your church and in your household or community, but your faith has no place in centers of education.

then you do not understand the meaning of education.

ed·u·ca·tion Audio pronunciation of \"education\" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (j-kshn)
n.

1. The act or process of educating or being educated.
2. The knowledge or skill obtained or developed by a learning process.
3. A program of instruction of a specified kind or level: driver education; a college education.
4. The field of study that is concerned with the pedagogy of teaching and learning.
5. An instructive or enlightening experience

There is much that can be learned from the scriptures. to omit one opinion because you disagree with or do not want to hear it will limit that education.
just because one might feel that a religious perspective on something is not to thier tastes, does not mean that it will not be educational. I personaly feel that all religion should be taught in school. then the education could be complete and rounded, not just a secular point of view, allow people to have ALL the information available and allow them to make thier own choices are we not adults? I do not understand what the secularists are afraid of when it comes to this Idea. because if all religion is taught in school then it could not be said that we are promoting or establishing a religion.
As science has yet to either prove or disprove the existence of God to not do this would be rediculous

I don't object to teaching the bible as a historical document. What I objected to was teaching the *faith* part, and the prayer during class part. Sure we need to know the famous world-wide religions in school. I guess I wasn't clear enough on that.

And props, Kil. I was actually talking to Diedel more than you though, but I appreciate your honesty.

the Bible Must be taught in a theological text, the History is only a small part of it. how can you teach about Creation, or the Flood or the History of Christ being risen from the dead as a historical event is you do not believe in that event? would you not be teaching it as fact? also you cannot seperate Faith from the teachings of the Bible, it is all throughout it. as far as the Prayer, you could forbid the action in the classroom environment but again you cannot seperate it from the teachings. those are two very integral parts of the scriptures.

CUDA wrote:the Bible Must be taught in a theological text, the History is only a small part of it. how can you teach about Creation, or the Flood or the History of Christ being risen from the dead as a historical event is you do not believe in that event? would you not be teaching it as fact? also you cannot seperate Faith from the teachings of the Bible, it is all throughout it. as far as the Prayer, you could forbid the action in the classroom environment but again you cannot seperate it from the teachings. those are two very integral parts of the scriptures.

The bible's historical value lies solely in what it has been responsible for through people of faith. The crusades, the wars, the religious philosophers, the religious artists. It helped shape the world of today. It's history tells you why there is a church in the center of the village, it tells you how countries came to be or came to fall. Whether you believe in God or not, it has had a tremendous impact on the world we know today. Ignoring that historical aspect is foolish, whatever your personal faith may be. All of this is factual; it can and should be taught regardless of religion.

The actual contents of the bible though, are bogus and irrelevant. If you keep pondering over the literal contents rather than the historical implications, it tells me you've missed out a great deal about what's important and what's not.

Diedel wrote:

roid wrote:i yearn for a time when religion has evolved to be truly tollerant and embracing to one another. we may say we are, but it so often feels like a war, with polarised opposites sworn to fight one another.

If you had understood the core of the Christian faith you'd know that this is utterly impossible if you wouldn't want to sacrifice exactly that core.

The central message of Christianity is:

• There is a perfect and holy God (divine trinity, the exact nature of which to explain is beyond human capabilities)
• Man is bad (and proves it every day since the beginning of history)
• Man therefore has deserved the death penalty (loss of eternal life) plus punishment (eternal pain)
• Out of love, God has taken the punishment on himself
• The only way to receive God's forgiveness is to accept that sacrifice and start a true heart-to-heart relationship with Jesus Christ
• Every force, idea, thought system, etc. opposing these statements cannot but be anti-God

How in all the earth do you want to merge this with the muslim faith, where you are measured by your deeds, or buddhism, where you will reincarnate until you have learned to live a perfect live and will dissolve in the everything and nothing (it makes me wonder how all the western people who are so fond of their individuality can strive for something like that anyway)? It's impossible.

Christianity is (should be) very tolerant towards people though. It's absolutely 'intolerant' towards ('incompatible with' is a better choice of words) ideas basically opposing it.

you celebrate christmas.
you know of it's pagan origins.

This seems to contradict your "intolerant christian hardliner" stance, yes? Hehe you can't fool me, your warm and fuzzy insides are showing . You'll be sorry when i declare a holy tickle war, the streets will be lined with the writhing fallen bodys of holy ROOFLE WARRIORS. ALLAH ACKBAR!!

The actual contents of the bible though, are bogus and irrelevant. If you keep pondering over the literal contents rather than the historical implications, it tells me you've missed out a great deal about what's important and what's not

sorry Tri. I will not even begin to debate with you how wrong you are. I know exactly whats important and whats not in my life. and it is rather presumptuous of you to tell I do not

roid wrote:you celebrate christmas.
you know of it's pagan origins.

This seems to contradict your "intolerant christian hardliner" stance, yes? Hehe you can't fool me, your warm and fuzzy insides are showing . You'll be sorry when i declare a holy tickle war, the streets will be lined with the writhing fallen bodys of holy ROOFLE WARRIORS. ALLAH ACKBAR!!

It should read "Allahu akbar" ...

What you apparently fail to know is why many Christian celebrations fall together with pagan ones.

Your turn.
_____________________

Birdseye,

as far as I can see you haven't given a single true counter argument to my post (which btw was a simple explanation) - all you did is trying to use rhetorical means (e.g. ridiculing me). Oh well. Not really impressive from an intellectual point of view (I know already what you will say about being intellectual next ... ).

One thing about "If you aren't for God, you are against him". This has nothing to do with George Bush and his way of thinking, but with the nature of God, who is perfect and (morally and ethically) pure. That leaves as about as much room for being a little impure, yet being for God, as you can be "a little" pregnant.

Your problem to understand this seems to be your own limited concept of God and the world. I hope I gave you a pointer enabling you to grasp there might be another explanation for my bold statement than those you could figure so far.

CUDA wrote:sorry Tri. I will not even begin to debate with you how wrong you are. I know exactly whats important and whats not in my life. and it is rather presumptuous of you to tell I do not

But apart from my personal opinion about your view, do you agree with my first paragraph?

yes

Diedel wrote:
Birdseye,

as far as I can see you haven't given a single true counter argument to my post (which btw was a simple explanation) - all you did is trying to use rhetorical means (e.g. ridiculing me). Oh well. Not really impressive from an intellectual point of view (I know already what you will say about being intellectual next ... ).

Actually, that's not true at all. Rather than reply to some of my penetrating arguments, you have chosen to simply point out the points where I did admittedly make fun of you, ignoring many of the valid arguments. But hidden inside the jokes, should you chose to think this hard, I think there was also a source or parallelistic truth between your overly simplified black and white world view and George Bush's. I continue below:

One thing about "If you aren't for God, you are against him". This has nothing to do with George Bush and his way of thinking, but with the nature of God, who is perfect and (morally and ethically) pure. That leaves as about as much room for being a little impure, yet being for God, as you can be "a little" pregnant.

The "with us or against us" comment about God is a silly oversimplification of the problem and the world, much like George Bush's statement. In Bush's case, it is still quite obvious that the people that didn't agree with us were NOT necessarily against us. It was an oversimplification of reality You see, it's very easy for me to point out 'gray areas' in "Good vs. Evil" discussions where it is entirely subjective to decide which person is good or which person is bad in the particular situation. Maybe God himself is wholly pure, but human actions cannot be defined in such a black and white viewpoint. I can give examples if you like.

Not only is it an inaccurate way to describe the world, but it is also polarizing and scares people away from your viewpoint. You have stated basically that people not following your version of God's "Good" are "Evil". This argument does nothing to bring them over to your side, as it spits in their face. It's also a gross oversimplification of a dynamic world.

Your problem to understand this seems to be your own limited concept of God and the world. I hope I gave you a pointer enabling you to grasp there might be another explanation for my bold statement than those you could figure so far.

Actually, I'd argue that your concept of God is significantly more limited than mine. I'm open to *many* ideas of the conception of God, but yours is fixed to only one, which is that of the dogmatic religion you believe in. Here's a link to my expanation of Hindu Gods: viewtopic.php?t=9085

It's about 2500 words about how I arrived at my own viewpoint. I suggest you read it before judging my philosophical scope as being limited.


I am also reposting now what I believe to by wholly legitimate points which you avoided by claiming they were all 'ridicule'. Perhaps I still sound like I am ridiculing you, but since we have such different viewpoints it's hard for me to say some of these things without honesty. I have added additional comments in hopes for improved clarity:

Diedel wrote:I am willing to allow a Voodoo priest to worship his "gods" (demons, as far as I am concerned) as much as I am willing to allow a pedophile to abuse children: Not at all.

Eh, to me the Voodoo priest is just as deluded and confused about the world as you are -- he can't prove any of his beliefs and bases his philosophical viewpoint on unprovable dogma. So can you prove your beliefs any better than the Vooodo priest can? No, I don't think you can't. So who are you to cast the first stone here?

From a Christian point of view, God as well as evil immaterial beings do exist and can influence the world we live in.

Based off of no evidence at all... but it's fun and ties life into neat little packages for everything bad to be 'the devil's' fault and everything Good to be related to God. All you've demonstrated is a human's desperate grasping to understand what is seemingly illogical.

What I'd like you to do is PROVE this influence. Otherwise, you are grasping in the dark just as the Voodoo priest is. Explain how this 'influence' was proved to you such that you now believe in it.

If you're not with God, your basically against him

...! ...! Sorry, but I don't think the "being" who created the world would be so stupid as to have the mentality of George Bush. This is absolutely rediculous.

My argument here is that of God was intelligent enough to create a *dynamic* world, it seems silly for him to have such a black and white view point. See Quantum Physics, the wave spectrum (frequency vs. wavelength) etc.
Odd that he'd create an entirely dynamic world, including situations that don't have a defined Good or Evil perspective (there are many stories where it's subjective to decide who is being good or evil, or if both are good or both are evil), yet have such a black and white view on being 'with him'. It is an utter inconsistency with the world he created.

So you will not catch me in the trap of false tolerance!

Just because you say you aren't being falsely tolerant, doesn't mean you aren't. That's all I'm saying. It seems you are intolerant of the Voodoo priest.

But - here comes the big "but": The question is how to fight demon worship (btw, worshipping a hedonistic, self-centered lifestyle lacking responsibility is a way of "idolatry", too)? The bible is very clear about this: A Christian's fight is not against flesh and blood, but against the "powers and principalities" in the "air" (i.e. the immaterial, yet existant beings around), and this fight is fought with prayer, worshipping God and exercising the divine virtue of altruistic love. From a Christian point of view doing such things is comparable to unfolding a "force field" or "aura" that negative "spiritual forces" cannot bear.

I hope this makes it somewhat understandable for non Christians to whom this is totally new.

I think you are off your rocker, but I understand why you believe it. I also question why you imply that not worshipping your God means that you have no sense of responsibility and are utterly hedonistic.

Now, if you start of mocking at this way of seeing the world, calling it just a form of superstition and childish beliefs, let me ask you why the Voodoo priest obviously does not qualify for the same, but enjoys your protection? This is pretty illogical, imho.

Hey, you are both childishly simplistic in your world view, and I think you guys should be protected equally. As far as I can tell you are the only one biased against the voodoo guy here. I also think you, like many non-christians do to you, are grossly oversimplifying Voodoo which is something you probably haven't spent much time genuinely trying to understand.

Neither of you can prove your faith.

Let me point you back to what I said above: If you're not for God, you're against him.

Again, a grossly oversimplified view of the world. You also have no way whatsoever to prove this. Please prove it. Now. Thanks.

Or do you like to hear that your way of life and thinking is so horribly bad in the eyes of God that he has decreed you deserve death for it? What feelings arise in you if you hear next that God in his immeasurable grace sacrificed himself to generously save from you the death penalty, although you deserved his offer in no way? Makes you feel great, huh?

I might be worried about this stuff if you could actually prove it and weren't just making it up. Go ahead, prove it.

Its this radicality that upsets ppl about Christianity: It's the only 'religion' where you cannot save yourself by your own efforts, and many ppl don't like that.

Nah, you are totally wrong. What upsets people is that you believe a made up story so forcefully that you begin spouting that you 'know' what god wants and thinks, although with absolutely no evidence to back your claims up. I hope you actually listen to this point, because this IS what actually upsets non Christians, despite whatever belief you may hold dear.

It provokes their pride (in a negative sense), nothing else. They just don't like to hear that they're not as good as they'd like to believe.

Personally, I tell you something: It's alright if you chose to live that way. But there is no way you will forbid a Christian to issue his/her opinions.

Have you ever considered your pride is coming out when you talk about Christianity? Think about it honestly for a second: You were smart enought to 'figure it out', right? and other people such as me haven't been smart enough to figure it out, right? so you must have at least a little pride in figuring it out. Answer me that.

Saying they would press their faith system on you is ridiculous (unless some Christian tries to force you to convert by putting a gun against your head). Actually, it's the non Christians pressing their way of life on the Christians, e.g. by forbidding prayer in schools. The proper way to handle this would have been to make participance in school prayer a matter of personal choice, but not forbid it altogether, because now you are taking the freedom to pray where they want to from those who want it.

I think it's OK to pray at school on your own personal time, but it should not be an involved school activity. It's a complete waste of time from my perspective, better served teaching something educational than revelling in delusional, unprovable (hence the word Faith) doctrine. We should teach what Chrisitians believe, but not whether or not to believe it.

It also doesn't seem to occur to you that non-, if not to say anti-Christian belief systems are attacking Christian faith 24/7. So it is alright for you to silence Christians, but Christians must bear your views and beliefs? Haha.

I don't think anyone is saying you should bear non Christian beliefs or be silenced. Speak in your church and in your household or community, but your faith has no place in centers of education. When I say that I mean not that Christianity and Christians reasons for believing what they do shouldn't be taught, but we should not be taught to believe what Chrisitians believe. Having prayer time in school gives credence to this unprovable viewpoint.

Cuda:

I think we're caught up in a semantical argument here, unless you actually believe that Christianity should be taught as Fact in schools.

I think we both agree that the major religions should be discussed in schools, including why that particular religion holds these beliefs. Where that should stop is the endorsement of a particular viewpoint as correct.

Birdseye wrote:unless you actually believe that Christianity should be taught as Fact in schools.

Again, just to clarify, you mean PUBLIC schools? Private schools should certainly be free to teach their sponsoring religion (if any) as fact.

Yes.

I'm closest to being a Libertarian, so of course I would never outlaw a private institution's choice of teaching religion like that.

I'm closest to being a Libertarian, so of course I would never outlaw a private institution's choice of teaching religion like that.

Good!

I wish there was some reasonable way to simply get RID of the public schools. It would save us a world of problems because there is simply no way to educate children in a truely neutral manner. No matter how hard you try, you end up with the government having to make decisions, with your tax dollars, that it should NEVER be involved in.

Unfortunantly, even though private schools generally educate children better, and cheaper, many parents simply would not be willing to make the sacrifices required to pay tuition at even the most inexpensive schools. Their children would be raised without the basic skills needed to succeed in society and be at a distinct disadvantage. Of course, even WITH the public school system we almost have that situation already. <sigh> I'm just not seeing a good solution to this problem.

Birdseye wrote:Cuda:

I think we're caught up in a semantical argument here, unless you actually believe that Christianity should be taught as Fact in schools.

It was until about 1920. The world changed about then as did many things in this country. The "official" method of teaching in public schools was radically changed in 1920.

Birdseye wrote: I think we both agree that the major religions should be discussed in schools, including why that particular religion holds these beliefs. Where that should stop is the endorsement of a particular viewpoint as correct.

absolutely they should be taught in public school. that would be the proper thing to do for a full education. as I said earlier teach them all and let us chose, I dont understand what is everyone so afraid of? is that not after all what education is about?

Diedel wrote:

roid wrote:you celebrate christmas.
you know of it's pagan origins.

This seems to contradict your "intolerant christian hardliner" stance, yes? Hehe you can't fool me, your warm and fuzzy insides are showing . You'll be sorry when i declare a holy tickle war, the streets will be lined with the writhing fallen bodys of holy ROOFLE WARRIORS. ALLAH ACKBAR!!

It should read "Allahu akbar" ...

What you apparently fail to know is why many Christian celebrations fall together with pagan ones.

Your turn.

(heh, i try to tell you what you do know, and you try to tell me what i don't know )

I have my theorys as to why pagan celebrations have been appropriated by the christian faith, yes (i kinda thought they were the same theorys everyone else had). I don't understand how someone can say that their religion is so "intollerant of opposing beliefs", while also celebrating christmas (among other celebrations) - a celebration that's more Pagan than Christian.

So where is this "core" christian purity you were talking about? It seems quite absorbent to me.

The historical root of Christian celebrations falling together (in terms of point of time) with pagan ones is the attempt of the church to overlay the old celebrations with the new ones and their contents, thus erasing the memory of the pagan cults while not taking away celebrations from the people.

How to celebrate especially Christmas is a very personal thing. You can take it as the solstice celebration (though a few days late), or celebrate it in memory of Jesus' birth.

Your interpretation, Christianity would embrace pagan cults just because of its celebrations therefore is absurd.

roid wrote:So where is this "core" christian purity you were talking about? It seems quite absorbent to me.

In many ways, Christianity has been way TOO absorbent. Absorbing holidays is one thing, but Christianity has also absorbed a lot of pagan doctrine. Now that is not NECESSARILY a bad thing, but generally so.

You see, Christianity does not pretend (or at least should not pretend) that it has a patent on the truth. There may be truths in some of the non-christian religions that it would do us good to learn. But these things must be examined VERY carefully and tested to ensure that they A: Don't conflict with the Bible, and B: Really are true.

God HAS at times chosen to enlighten his people through pagan influences. The doctrine of "Satan", the enemy, the rebel against God, was certainly Biblical, you can find it quite solidly in Genesis. But then Satan seems to have been sort of forgotten.
For example, look at these two texts (which I have talked about before):
2 Sam 24 Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."
and
1 Chronicles 21 Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.

The book of 2 Kings was written sometime after 971 b.c., but the parallel account in 1 Chronicles was written after the Babylonian captivity in the latter half of the 5th century b.c., so around 400 years later. At the time of 1 Kings, the Hebrew people didn't have a great grasp on the concept of Satan, they had pretty much forgotten him. To them, everything that happened was the direct will of God, so since someone obviously tempted David, it must have been God. 400 years later the Hebrews have advanced somewhat in their theology, in large part due to the time spent in Babylon. There they rediscovered the concept of Satan from the pagans, examined it and learned that, indeed, it was true and scriptural. So the new version of the David story clarifies this point.

Unfortunantly, on many points, the Christian church hasn't botherd to "test the spirits", but has simply absorbed pagan doctrine.

Being a Christian doesn't mean thinking all other religions are wrong. It does mean thinking that where they DISAGREE with Christianity they are wrong. But it also leaves open the possibility that there are things we can learn from them. God is not so exclusive as to never speak to anyone who isn't a Jew or a Christian.

Compromise is when the Christian church absorbes false doctrine, which has certainly happened a lot. Learning from others is not NECESSARILY compromise.

Ignoring Diedel's post for a moment, let's just look at Birds' response, because I think he gave a great answer to the question of why people don't like / hate / get angry at Christians... really, a great answer to why people don't like / hate / get angry at people from other ideologies in general.

He says such things as:
- your view of the world looks completely deluded to me
- you don't have any evidence to back up your view
- you can't prove your viewpoint; it's based on unproveable ideas
- your view is childishly simplistic
- you're totally off your rocker
- you think you're actually RIGHT, and that's arrogant! (And you think people who aren't \"right\" by your definition are going to hell!)

Aside from the last (parenthetical) point, isn't that a great description of why people don't like people of other religions and political ideologies in general? Other people's views are definitely unproveable, and they often look simplistic, childish, deluded, or without evidence (because if we'd seen good evidence for them, we'd likely hold those views!) This doesn't mean there is no evidence, but there often isn't evidence we think is \"good enough\". When someone from another viewpoint dares claim they're right without being able to solidly back their point up to our satisfaction, we find that offensive. And when they dare claim that we're wrong and there are serious consequences because of it... we get angry.

When you add to that the fact that the average Christian in the US has some questionable-at-best views on a lot of subjects people feel strongly about (from evolution to gay marriage) and when you note that some of them want to make their religious views into law, that can get pretty darn angering.

-----

Now, Birds, I think you've been unfair regarding Diedel's point about the Voodoo priest... he seems quite willing to pray for the Voodoo to be ineffective and for the dude to convert, but hasn't given any indication that he'd seek to stop the guy in any legal or physical sense. In fact, he said explicitly that the only thing he'd do against the guy was pray. How is that any less tolerant than your wanting people to change their political views by trying to convince them using words? In both cases, you think the other side is wrong and should stop what they're doing, and you want them to have a change of heart, but in neither case are you trying to deny them any legal rights. The only difference is that Diedel wants God to create the change of heart, while you want your words to create the change of heart.

-----

You say that some situations \"don't have a defined Good or Evil perspective\": I would say all situations *do* have good and evil perspectives, but they're not always simple, easy to point out, or directly opposed to one another. It's not as though all situations have a \"good guy\" wearing a conspicuous white hat and a \"bad guy\" wearing a conspicuous black hat, and I think it's disrespectful to pretend anyone here believes such a thing. In most situations, ALL parties involved have good, evil, and in-between paths they could choose, and there's no guarantee that people choosing the good path will necessarily end up helping each other. As a silly example, take two pro athletes on different teams who are being paid to play hard, try to win, and entertain the fans -- IMO, both players would be doing \"good\" to do those things, but each will necessarily be an obstacle to the other. It's equally easy to create an example where both parties choose an evil path (say, if Saddam's sons had fought him over power) or where multiple parties have the option to do good, evil, or some of both. And it's easy to create situations where good and evil are so plainly obvious that nobody credible could deny it. There are times when good and evil are hard to discern and times when they're obvious -- there are grays, AND black and white situations.

Unfortunately, the hate does not lie solely with the anti-Christians. There are people claiming to be Christians who actively spread hate, themselves. You may have heard about some \"Christian\" pastor (in Kansas) who gets his congregation to attend anything about gays, including their funerals, holding sign saying how God hates them and they should all burn in hell.

But the Bible clearly says that \"God so loved the world\", not \"the world (except for gays)\". It is people like this who inspire hatred of Christianity in others.

Now, I am not saying Christians should simply be tolerant of everything. But instead of caring so much about their actions, we should care about their hearts. The Bible says engaging in homosexual activity is sinful, but so is adultery and fornication. God hates the action, not the person.

Paul wrote:... The Bible says engaging in homosexual activity is sinful, but so is adultery and fornication. God hates the action, not the person.

and so is murder, lieing, coveting (wonting something so bad, you're willing to steal it), and mocking.

Paul wrote:The Bible says engaging in homosexual activity is sinful, but so is adultery and fornication. God hates the action, not the person.

Exactly. Unfortunantly, humans tend to pick their favorite sin, often based on the "ick" factor, or the fear factor, and then act as if THEY must be much better since none of their own sins are as bad as that.

And, unfortunantly, the reputation of Christianity suffers.

Kilarin wrote:Exactly. Unfortunantly, humans tend to pick their favorite sin, often based on the "ick" factor, or the fear factor, and then act as if THEY must be much better since none of their own sins are as bad as that.

Very well said!

Kilarin wrote:

Paul wrote:The Bible says engaging in homosexual activity is sinful, but so is adultery and fornication. God hates the action, not the person.

Exactly. Unfortunantly, humans tend to pick their favorite sin, often based on the "ick" factor, or the fear factor, and then act as if THEY must be much better since none of their own sins are as bad as that.

And, unfortunantly, the reputation of Christianity suffers.

Actually you are quite true about human behavior on that point, I will however point out that the only plausible reason for this being that you are punished according to you're crimes nowadays,and always have been.

Take for instance, Guilty X and Guilty Y
Guilty X walks in a grocery store, robs the place and shoots a cashier (who later dies).

Now consider Guilty Y who walks in, who shoplifts, but does not let anybody see it, the cameras catch him and he is charged with shoplifting.

Which one will be punished more and give reason why both should or should not recieve equal punishment, if not then why?

Diedel wrote:The historical root of Christian celebrations falling together (in terms of point of time) with pagan ones is the attempt of the church to overlay the old celebrations with the new ones and their contents, thus erasing the memory of the pagan cults while not taking away celebrations from the people.

How to celebrate especially Christmas is a very personal thing. You can take it as the solstice celebration (though a few days late), or celebrate it in memory of Jesus' birth.

Your interpretation, Christianity would embrace pagan cults just because of its celebrations therefore is absurd.

it's not just the dates. It's the absorbed symbols as well. The Eggs of Easter, the Tree of Christmas, etcetc - there's a lot. And i never did understand why the Drifting Star is so venerated - it was controlled by Satan who was using it to try to get Jesus killed by Herod! The symbolism of Christian holy days is quite intersparsed with Pagan symbolism. And why does Satan look like Pan?

The Christian holidays wern't tweaked to erase the Pagan's religion - they were tweaked to absorb the Pagan symbolism into Christianity somewhat, to make it more palatable for Pagans to convert. The Pagan symbols are still in there though, testiment that if there is such a thing as an intollerant and pure Christian core - you certainly arn't part of it if you are worshiping Christmas

I basically want you to get off your high horse and admit that there already is a heap of Pagan influence in modern Christianity - and admit that you are apathetic regarding it, you are NOT fuming with holy righteous rage about it.

So why put on this big "RA RA RA Christianity will never ever let itself meld with other religions!" display of false righteousness? You've melded with other religions in the past, it's no big-whoop suggestion that it will happen again.

roid wrote: And why does Satan look like Pan?

I'm pretty sure he doesn't (that's why I thought the movie "The Devil's Advocate (Al Pacino, Keanu Reeves) was pretty good), any more than Moses looks like Charleton Heston, or God is an old, fatherly guy with a white beard sitting up on a cloud somewhere. Maybe we anthropomorphize the supernatural for the reason that humans have a need to try to feel like they have some control in this area.

Yeah i thought i'd just stick with modern \"post-bible\" absorbtions into christianity. I'm surprised no-one has called me out on this: but none of the Pagan influences i mentioned are actually mentioned in the Bible itself, they were brought in after the Bible books were already written and the canon finalised.

A true Christian Bible Fundamentalist should probabaly not be celebrating Christmas as most Christians do today.

i thought it'd be simpler for now to ignore all of the PRE-bible influences onto Christianity and just focus on how Christianity has deviated from the Bible by absorbing aspects from other religions.

roid wrote:A true Christian Bible Fundamentalist should probabaly not be celebrating Christmas as most Christians do today.

please clarify so I might be able to respond better

Can't we all just get along?

***...and forget about Jesus?

roid wrote:A true Christian Bible Fundamentalist should probabaly not be celebrating Christmas as most Christians do today.

Cuda wrote:please clarify so I might be able to respond better

roid, being into psychology, is too tied up with symbols. It's a Jungian thing.

We had a discussion of Christmas back at Christmas in this topic.
There you will find several Christians (including myself) defending Christmas, and several others giving the alternate point of view. It is, I feel, a well executed discussion on both sides.

I think it all comes down to the importance of symbols. I would have objected to the celebration of Christmas when it first worked it's way in. At that time, the symbols all still had their original meanings. But by this point in history, people who look at a Christmas tree don't see anything other than over comercialized Christmas. Symbols have no "magic" in them other than the meanings we give them.

roid wrote:they were brought in after the Bible books were already written and the canon finalised.

A true Christian Bible Fundamentalist should probabaly not be celebrating Christmas as most Christians do today.

Automobiles were created after the Bible. Does that mean a true fundamentalist shouldn't drive?

It depends a lot on what you think a "true fundamentalist" should be. Is it someone who lives exactly like people in the Bible lived (using only Bible-times technology, following Bible-times customs, etc.)? Is it someone whose religious ceremony is exactly like those in the Bible (using only Bible-times instruments in ceremony)? Is it someone who follows the Old Testament law? What should make someone a "fundamentalist"?

In theory, "fundamentalist" would refer to a person who follows the fundamentals of the Bible -- which is what I'd say I do. I just think the fundamentals of the Bible are such that there's nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas.

thats exactly what I want him to clarify Lothar

it was just a reaction to the \"i (Diedel) am a good intollerant christian\" comments. But it seems you guys may have some kindof drawn-line in your beliefs that i didn't predict.

now i'm all curious as to the nature of these lines, it could be a whole new thread on it's own. Huzzuh, lets make one

here we are:
new thread: the Line between Christianity and \"false-religion\"

Zuruck wrote: ***...and forget about Jesus?

no, you are welcome to grace this thread with you're abscence however.

ahhh...a religion of love yes? WWJD for a klondike bar?

Zuruck wrote:ahhh...a religion of love yes? WWJD for a klondike bar?

WOW your tolerence is most refreshing. you've really showed me that an atheism is the way to go Zurich, you obviously are much more Mature than the Christian right

It seems as when you decide to be a Christian, you decide to have no sense of humor. I'd rather have the humor...something tangible...you can do every single day. You know it's funny, I have more anger towards religion than even President Bush, yet I still think it's ok for other people, and I am the intolerant one. Cuda, Behemoth, you guys would love to see Christianity forced upon everyone, you have this idea that if it was, this country would be one big pot of love, but it wouldn't, it would be exactly the same, if not worse.