The ARG220 Thread, Part 2

You want a new thread, you got a new thread. Here's a link to the first part:
http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000070.html

This is Arg's official notice.

I am not going to convert back to any form of Christianity. Any attempts at witnessing that you may provide, therefore, will not serve to save my soul, only to irritate me. It is rude to irritate others. So there.

Matt, we hope you'll reconsider, we got a special this week, re-convert now and you get:
- free water at the re-baptism (pure bottled spring water, your choice of carbonated or not, plus several flavours such as orange, lemon, or lime)
- two wafers for the price of one, bring a friend to your conversion
- eternal salvation plus perpetual bliss
- avoidance of personal responsibility for any actions and advance forgiveness for any two (count them, two) cardinal sins and any four (count them, four) venal sins in the first six months (after that, normal rates apply)
- special 1-800 number for confessions; press 1 for adultery, press 2 for murder, press 3 for impure thoughts, etc.
- choice of halo, variety of sizes and colours, at discount prices
- choice of harp, variety of sizes and colours, at discount prices (special this week only: synthesizer option, for small extra charge)
- special blinders, inscribed with the logo of our religion, preventing you from seeing anything inconvenient or inconsistent with our doctrine
- discount coupons that can be used at any anti-gay or anti-abortion rally for special placards and buttons
- a bumper sticker saying "I AM SAVED BUT YOU'RE NOT" with a picture of a cute little smiley face sticking out its tongue (By the way, we have several hundred bumper stickers saying "I AM SAVED BUT YOUR NOT" available at half price.)
- A free copy of our bible, in the original English, Hebrew, French, Spanish or Greek, with any objectionable or inconvenient parts left out (like, none of that "love thy neighbor" crap)

Plus, if you convert now, you can receive one of our special Holier-than-thou t-shirts (in red, white, and blue) -- holes are extra.

And, if you act now, we'll throw in absolutely free a set of ginko knives.

- a bumper sticker saying "I AM SAVED BUT YOU'RE NOT" with a picture of a cute little smiley face sticking out its tongue

CK, You remind me of a great T-shirt I once saw:

<FONT SIZE=4><tt>Jesus died for my sins and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.</tt></FONT>

------------------
Most common question I ask: "What?"
Most common question I get: "Are you really hearing impaired?"

Hey Matt, are you one of those PLDennsion types who was once saved, and now you're not? Or are you stating that you don't like being witnessed to.

Adam.

Damn, Dex. Now I almost wanna become christian.

And if you were offering the tried and true "carful of hookers and a big pile of blow". I'd probably be all over it.

Heh. . ."I AM SAVED BUT YOUR NOT" at half-price.

Waste
Flick Lives!

Hey Matt, are you one of those PLDennsion types who was once saved, and now
you're not? Or are you stating that you don't like being witnessed to.

I ain't a "type," Sunny Jim, I'm an individual. Nice to see you've settled the theological arguments on whether one can "lose" salvation, though.

You, OTOH, are a "type." I can spit and hit ten people just like you from where I sit.

PL: I am sorry for calling you a "type." I wasn't thinking when I posted that message. I just meant to ask Matt if he was once saved, and now isn't, like you. Really, PL, I didn't mean to offend you in any way, and I'm truly sorry.

Adam

I think I will take the opportunity now to respond to Adam's question about why I am now a "backslider".
Having been brought up in the Pentecostal Christian faith, I grew up feeling very cheated and decieved by a doctrine that couldn't answer to my satisfaction the questions that I asked. I don't and never have accepted the Bible as fact ordained by God. I need something real and pertinent to my time and situation. There are many things in the Bible that cross time and are very relevent today, but I do not think that it is the only source from which one can draw to reach God. I struggle with my beliefs every day because I do not choose to blindly accept the teachings of the church. I really have to think about the consequences of what I do - and not for fear of some eternal retribution. My mother uses this tactic on me all the time no matter how many times I explain to her that my beliefs cannot and will not be based on fear of the unknown. Myabe the specific church I was reared in did me wrong. In any case, I listen to the conversations my parents have with their friends and it sickens me to the point that I don't even bother quoting scripture to counter their statements anymore. They feel free to expound on their holier than thou opinions about the things that go on in this world through their skewed view and have the gall to consider themselves among the "persecuted."
The way any Christian doctrine chooses to teach it's flock only differs from another in the way it interprets the Bible. It's all about interpretation. It is a difference of OPINION. If you want to interpret the Bible literally, go right ahead. Inasmuch as it only affects your own life, you can't go wrong and you really aren't hurting anyone. Your choices are YOURS to make. Just remember, that some of the Bible is allegorical and Jesus himself spoke largely in parables - ever heard of a METAPHOR? Some things aren't meant to be literal.

I've always avoiding diving into the religious threads (though I love reading them). But I found Heath's and PL's backgrounds and current views interesting. Would anyone else like to post what their religious upbringing was and how it differs, if at all, from what they now believe?

I was raised a godless heathen--my parents never indoctrinated me into any religion, but left me to make up my own mind about it all as an adult (I am very grateful to them!). When I was in my 20s I did a lot of research on every religion I could find (modern, ancient, huge, cult, you name it), and came to the conclusion that I simply could not bring myself to buy into any of them. The two least bizarre, to my mind, seemed to be Unitarianism and Shintoism, but even they involved beliefs and practices I couldn't get my mind around. I have friends of all sects, but they are smart and nice enough not to try to convert me, and I show the the same favor.

My father was raised in Alabama and was forced by his mother to attend Church of Christ services three times per week. This experience made him wary of organized religion, therefore he never forced me or my brother to attend services of any kind.

My mother was raised in California, baptized Catholic and attended mass sporadically.

I was baptized Catholic as an infant and attended mass with my mom as a toddler. Vague memories of a priest who told me that "everyone has skeletons in their closet", then opened his closet and laughingly showed me the medical skeleton in it. I took it literally and looked for skeletons in closets for years.

For a few years we didn't attend services of any kind. Then we moved to Texas and joined the United Methodist church. I didn't really "get into" the services or understand anything about a relationship with God, etc. I did get help from a female pastor once. I had seen "The Excorcist" and got really freaked out. I couldn't sleep. The pastor showed me a passage in the bible - Ephesians 6:11-18 - about the "full armor of God". It was a tremendous help.

A couple years later we moved to Germany. My only contact with organized religion was through a Christian youth group called Club Beyond. I went on a couple of retreats and got what I call a "God high" for a few weeks after each.

For a few years after high school I was an agnostic. Then I had a transforming personal event and decided that there definitely is a higher power out there.

It wasn't until I became an adult and attended a non-denominational church on a military base that I truly understood bible passages, sermons, etc. and could gain something from them.

I now attend a large Methodist church in the Twin Cities. I'm not sure if I want to remain a Methodist - still looking around.

I have higher self-esteem and I feel better about my place in the world when I attend church, read the bible and pray regularly.

I believe that unasked-for witnessing drives potential believers off.

I believe that you cannot argue faith.

I believe that everyone has the right to worship who and/or whatever they wish to.

I believe a lot of other stuff that many Christians would say is blasphemous... But I refuse to debate my religious beliefs anymore.

My brother, sister and I were raised as generic Christians. We didn't attend a church, but mom told us bible stories, taught us the golden rule and we observed Christmas, Easter, etc. Then, in 1975, when I was 14, my dad retired from the Navy and we moved to the same northern CA town where his parents lived. Grandma and Grandad attended a Southern Baptist church and our family started attending with them. The pastor at their church was an extraordinarily gifted and charismatic speaker and an extremely good and kind man. One by one, my family was "called to Christ." My parents were baptised first, then the three of us kids. I am a "researcher" by nature, and immeadiately after my baptism I started reading and studying the bible and found WAY more questions than answers. I spoke with Pastor Coolidge about my reservations and he was as helpful as he could be under the circumstances, but eventually was forced to admit that faith was a thing he could not "give" me -- I either had it or I didn't. I decided I didn't have it, and left the church at about age 16, convinced by my reading and research that "God" was a myth. Pastor Coolidge left our church shortly after I did (he semi-retired) and the rest of my family stopped attending shortly after. I believe that my siblings and I were responding more to Pastor Coolidge's fire and talent than to a real religious conversion experience. As for my parents, I think my mother has a genuine faith in God and my dad was seeking a church for us as part of a search for stability after dragging around for 20 years in the navy. My parents still don't attend church, nor does my brother (although he does still consider himself a saved Christian), my sister married a Mormon and converted to LDS. Her family left that church a few years ago -- they felt it (and christianity in general) was inconsistent with feminism. Currently, they are all sort of spiritual in a New Agey way. I would not be surprised to see my sister eventually plunge all the way into Wicca. My husband doesn't like the idea of raising our kids as athiests, so, because I myself still have an emotional response to Christianity -- based on memories of my happy childhood rather than of real belief, my family celebrates Christmas and Easter and we go to church occasionally. I guess I think of myself as a "cultural christian," but intellectually I am an athiest.

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

Heath: Did I call you a backslider? Can I just make a couple comments on your post?
You said:I don't and never have accepted the Bible as fact ordained by God. I need something real and pertinent to my time and situation. There are many things in the Bible that cross time and are very relevent today, but I do not think that it is the only source from which one can draw to reach God.
The Bible is not the only source for teaching. There are many great books out there that inspire Christians. But the Bible needs to be the ultimante guide, and the plumb line. If you don't think the Bible is God's Word, then the plumb line is already off center.
I do not choose to blindly accept the teachings of the church.
And you shouldn't. But again, there has to be a focal point in which you can check out the teachings, and that's the Bible.

You said that you struggle with your beliefs every day Heath. It sounds like you're not toally backsliden, but that you're trying to find out what God is like for yourself. Well, I don't want to speculate on your heart anymore than I should. I just think that you still have a desire to learn about God, but because of past hurts, you're finding it difficult to find a firm foundation of faith.

Adam

I used to go to a Christian church - the United Church of Canada.

Then, when I turned 16 and I decided that wow I can think for myself, I decided to quit and find a less contradictory religion.

I'm now a Wiccan. And I am no longer interested in hearing from you that I'm going to hell - like I need a stranger to tell me that like ten years of Sunday school wasn't enough. Oy.

Adam, will you do me a favor? Will you go to: http://www.chick.com , read a couple of tracts and tell me what you think? There is a thread about these tracts over on "MPSIMS" -- the thread is called "For those who enjoyed CAPalert." Anyway, I'm a little curious about what you think of these christian comics. I've read most of them, so will you just pick a few at random and give me your opinion. Thanks.

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

Jess: I cruised on over to that site and read the tract about the Last Rites. "Ill informed, at best" is the polite view.

Well, yeah, Monty... Did you read "The Visitors?" Worse than ill-informed. I wanted Adam's opinion because he's the only person we've got around here who I think MIGHT agree with all that nonsense. Call me an optimist, but I'm hoping Adam will come back and say, "Gee. That stuff is SILLY!" We'll see.

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

[[Adam, will you do me a favor? Will you go to: http://www.chick.com , read a couple of tracts and tell me what you think? There is a thread about these tracts over on "MPSIMS" -- the thread is called "For those who enjoyed CAPalert." Anyway, I'm a little curious about what you think of these christian comics. I've read most of them, so will you just pick a few at random and give me your opinion. Thanks.]] Jess


Here is SubGenius scribe Ivan Stang's take on the immortal (and immoral) Jack Chick and his product:

"Learn to HATE for GOD. These are the tiny, rectangular "Christian" comic books that grinning zombies hand you on the street -- the ones with atrocious art and an almost pre-human level of sheer, unbridled hate, manipulating the lowest human religious instincts. Not exactly a "turn the other cheek" philosophy. These have probably turned more people off to Jesus than any other Christian publication. If the Devil has been looking for something to make Jesus look bad, this is it. Chick depicts, with all-too-revealing glee, the eternal suffering that awaits Jews, Catholics, unbaptized babies, people who cuss, and anyone else slightly less consumed with hate and fear than he is. These rank right down there with the craziest Nazi UFO rantings, yet to many ignorant racists these are Truth. Terrifying."

Ok, I just got back from that Chick site. I must say that I laughed when reading those two main tracts..."The Secret," and the "Superstar." Although I believe they tell the truth, the way the truth is presented is rather comical.

I also read "The Visitors." I need to ask Monty if everything in that tract is true about Mormons. Because, quite frankly, I was shocked. I had no idea the Mormon faith was so twisted. (If, in fact, the stuff in the tract is what they believe) What I DIDN'T like is that the tract seemed "anti-Mormon." And that's not very Christian-like at all. The girl even had a frightened look on her face, when she said, "They're Mormons!!" As if they are the devil or somthing. :(

I also have a HUGE problem with the fact that Chick only uses the KJ version, and says that there is no version above it. That is just sick and wrong. I have used the KJ, and NIV version, and I think the NIV is vastly superior. But I'd never say that there's nothing better than it, and I also think the KJ is still God's Holy Word. I just think the NIV is a more precise translation, and it's a lot easier to read.

In short...I would not recommend Chick tracts to anybody. They represent a "holier than thou" attitude, and if I don't like them, chances are excellent that an unsaved person would find them rediculous, and offensive.

Adam

Well, there you have it, Jess. ARG says the Chick tracts are true and other religions are sick and twisted.

I was baptised in the Methodist church, but we rarely went. Got sent to Baptist Vacation Bible School as a kid. My mom went through a Catholic wannabe phase so we all went there for a while. When I was 18 my mom converted to Judaism. So I got a little "taste" of several different religions, and found I couldn't really agree with any of them.

When I was pregnant with my first child I discovered Unitarian-Universalism, and that's the church for me.

The short version of what the religion is about is: it's a centuries old liberal religion based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

The long (and much better) version of what the church is about can be found here:

www.uua.org (http://www.uua.org)

And I hereby officially declare that matt_mcl isn't going to hell. He's too smart and too cool (Wiccans rock!) :)

------------------

Monty: Why don't you read my post again. Only this time, take in everything that I wrote, and then decide how I view those tracts. Here's a good summary for you:
I don't like them.

(But of course, you already knew that I think other religions are twisted)

Adam

Adam: exactly what did I miss? You stated the tracts were true, albeit comical. But you did state they're true, at least in your opinion.

You also stated that in your view LDS is twisted and sick and that Judaism is a sick joke.

What I fear you will never understand is that all of those statements from you is opinion and that your opinion is based on ignorance as you refuse to learn.

Class: what is it we call those who refuse to learn and delight in ignorance?

Trolls? Dumbasses? Ignoramusses? (Ignorami?)



------------------

Adam said:
. I have used the KJ, and NIV version, and I think the NIV is vastly superior. (sentence cut) I just think the NIV is a more precise translation, and it's a lot easier to read.

Adam, on what do you base this? How do you know which is a more precise translation? From what I've been able to gather, you've never done any research into Bible translation. How is it that you come to the conclusion that the NIV is a superior translation?


------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

Well, I looked over the Chick stuff and the links it provided. The "truths" it provides are not just "comical," they are, in many horrible ways, wrong. The linked sites devoted to "explaining" Catholicism and Islam have so many factual errors that a "truth in publishing" law would get them suppressed. (The article by J.M. Carroll with two links to it were particularly nasty. He stays close enough to an encyclopedia's view of history that the average person would not immediately be able to check on his lies, but his version of history is, indeed, filled with untruths, distortions, and re-interpreted history.) If this is the sort of stuff that people have prattled at Adam, it's no wonder he can't distinguish between reality and his version of it.

(On the other hand, the site libeling Islam has a whole section on "logical fallacies" that is a hoot to read, considering how many logical fallacies are found throughout the Chick tripe--including the section on logical fallacies of Islam.)

------------------
Tom~

Yeah, Adam's assertions about the Bible versions struck me as rather ridiculous, too. I have a Bible called the Lamsa Bible, which is, to my knowledge, the most precise translation of the Bible we have. It was translated directly from the original texts, many in the dead language Aramaic, which was supposeedly Christ's tongue. The differences between that and other Bibles are startling, to say the least.

That's the thing with the Bible; the language in it is so arcane, how can anyone claim to have a perfect understanding of it? Almost everythign I've read of it has struck me as maddeningly ambiguous and open to interpretation. Which is why there are so many interpretations, no doubt. But that anyone (particularly Joe Six Pack) could read it and say: "Oh yeah, perfefctly clear!" strikes me as laughable.

As for the Chick stuff, I can see why they would be effective with a certain type of person. My favorite part is the last page of all of them: Let Jesus Save you TODAY! - sounds like an ad for Crazy Eddie's stereos. The Halloween was was SO ludicrous, I sat dumbfounded that anyone could be that ignorant and paranoid. Anyone see the one where Suzie gets AIDS? Did you know the virus can pass through surgical gloves? Info provided by the medical journal "Focus on the Family Newsletter" - that Dr. Dobson! Thank the Lord we have him to set the medical community straight, eh?



------------------
*************
Are YOU ready for Y2K? Take my advice: Panic early and avoid the rush.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. I have used the KJ, and NIV version, and I think the NIV is vastly superior. (sentence cut) I just think the NIV is a more precise translation, and it's a lot easier to read.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARG, the NIV is a much more "readable" version of the scriptures. Personally, I prefer it over any other version for day to day, multi-purpose use.

But as for translation precision, its not necessarily any better than KJV. I know just enough about the bible's original languages to be dangerous, and often find myself using the Greek or Hebrew Lexicon to look up the precise meaning of a scriptural phrase. I have discovered on a word-by-word basis, there is no english translation of the bible that is a more faithful renering of the literal meaning of the original texts than the KJV. It might turn out cumbersome. It might miss some of the subtle meanings lost in idioms which are not easily translated. But its the most literal version I've ever come across.


------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

A note on ARG's comment above about the concordance:

- It takes a heck of a lot more than a dictionary to translate one language into another. If that's all you're relying on here, try this example, and I'll not even tell you what language the word is:

gift

Now give the presice meaning in English of the word above in bold.

[matt_mcl]

matt_mcl ...is too smart and too cool (Wiccans rock!)

*flattered blush* Aw shucks, thanks very much.

[matt_mcl]

Here's Arg's problem: He thinks that John 3:16 reads "For God hated the world so much that he sent his only son so that whoever does not believe in him will perish and be denied eternal life."

[Alex Kennedy]

Well, I saw the Chick Tract on Buddhists, and I must say it's incredibly amusing! In fact, Mr. Chick clears up some misconceptions about Buddhism, since the historical Buddha himself stated he was not a god.
In any event, these comics are very funny, and I recommend them to anyone who tends to know the truth of the matter in regards to their subject matter.

Matt...or anyone for that matter: Do you think that God hates you? Do you think that God hates people? I suspect that some of you are angry with God. And perhaps you could tell me why.

Adam

[SkeptiJess]

Adam -- I am often accused of being "angry with God." Just a few weeks ago, at alt.support.cerbral-palsy in a thread on alternative medicine, a woman accused me of being "angry at God for letting [my] child be disabled." Nonsense. I'm no more angry with God than I am with the Wicked Witch of the West, Santa Claus, Hannibal Lector or any other fictional character. I don't belief in God -- I am NOT angry at him/her/it. Get it?

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

[matt_mcl]

I'm angry at *your* god for being arrogant, hypocritical, and self-contradictory. I'm angry at *you* for spreading a message of hatred and calling it love. I am not angry at my god and goddess. There.

[Dernhelm]

Adam, I am curious about what your answer to the question that Monty posted on 08-02-99 10:44 PM would be.

Also, you make the statement to matt that "I never spread any message of hatred. That's just how you perceive it, even though you're dead wrong."

I could say that you just perceive your message of intolerance as a message of love. Even though you're dead wrong.

------------------
"I'm not confused, I'm just well mixed"
--Robert Frost

Monty said (on 8-2-99):- It takes a heck of a lot more than a dictionary to translate one language into another. If that's all you're relying on here, try this example, and I'll not even tell you what language the word is:

gift

Now give the presice meaning in English of the word above in bold.
He said this because I was using the NIV Concordance to look up certain words in Hebrew. The concordance gives all the meanings of any word used. So, his point was simply irrelevant. However, I understand what he's trying to say, and that's why I never answered his question. Let's just say that I got the point that there can be more than one meaning to a word.

Dernhelm, you say:I could say that you just perceive your message of intolerance as a message of love. Even though you're dead wrong.
I never said that my message of intolerance was a message of love.
I find it very distressing that most of you can't grasp the concept of "loving the sinner, but hating the sin."
I can love all of you, but be intolerant of your sin. In fact, I'm SUPPOSED to hate sin, because it's commanded in the Bible.
God does it, Jesus does it, Paul did it.
Do you understand this? Do you understand that God loves every person ever created? But can you also understand that He abhors sin? My goodness, it's so simple to grasp, but most of you fail to comprehend it. He loves you, but He hates your sin. He sent Jesus to die for you, so your sins could be covered. That's how you get to heaven. It's easy as pie...no it's EASIER than pie.

Adam

[Lucky]

Actually, if I took a poll of Christians around the globe, I'd guess that far more were converted as teens, or adults, rather than being raised that way...especially in other countries where Christianity is the foreign religion. BTW, when I say Christian, I mean Protestant, not Catholic.

I so wanted to find solid stats to refute this idiotic idea, but alas, such numbers were elusive. Nevertheless, I think the stats I did find help to shed some light on this issue.

But first, I have to ask: Adam where do you get these ridiculous ideas? First off, in countries where Christinaity is a foriegn religion of course most Christians were converted as adults. There was no Christinaity in these places until the missionaries got to them and, while they have been known to run around baptizing every baby they can find, I don't think you can make the argument that these are infant conversions.

Now as to the crux of your argument, I believe you are wrong. Most people follow the religion of their families. Though I tried, I can't find U.S. statistics on this. However, if you want to extrapolate from the statistics I have found, consider this: Below is a list of nine non-Christian countries and the percentages of the population which follow various religions. Because these countries are non-christian, virtually all of the Christians represent adult conversions. Now, note the incredibly small number of Christians.

India: Hindu 80%, Muslim 14%, Christian 2.4%, Sikh 2%, Buddhist 0.7%, Jains 0.5%, other 0.4%
Nepal: Hindu 90%, Buddhist 5%, Muslim 3%, Other 2%
Thailand: Buddhist 95%, Muslim 3.8%, Christian 0.5%, Hindu 0.1%, Other 0.6%
China: Officailly atheist, but Taoism, Busshism and Muslim 2-3%, Christian 1% (est.)
Sri Lanka: Buddhist 69%, Hindu 15%, Christian 8%, Muslim 8%
Japan: Shinto/Buddhist 84%, Other 16 % (including Christian 0.7%)
Turkmenistan: Muslim 89%, Eastern Orthodox 9%, Unknown 2%
Pakistan: Muslim 97%, Christian, Hindu and Other 3%
(Stats courtesy World Fact Book 1998)

Furthermore, these perccentages have changed very little over the past two decades, suggesting that most people do not change their religion.

Granted, these statistics do not address your assertation preceisely, but I would ask you to think about it this way: If what you suggest is true, then most Christians today are adult or teen converts and were not raised as Christians. The current demographic info regarding religions in the U.S is this:
Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jews 2%, Other 4%, None 10%.
If most of these 56% were adult or teen converts, what were they before? Are you suggesting that a couple of decades ago only, say, 20% of the population were Protestant, and that since then the additional 36% have converted?

Please Adam, please try to educate yourself a bit rather than just thinking up thoughts in your head and deciding they are true.

As an aside, you might notice that in all of the statistics I sited save for the U.S., Catholics are counted among the Christians. Most of the world does not exclude Catholics from the catagory of Christian. Personally, I don't see how you can exclude them either, since being a Christian means that one follows Christ, which they clearly do.


------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

[Dernhelm]

Adam said:
I never said that my message of intolerance was a message of love.
No, I said your message was intolerance, you said it was love. I was just pointing out that people perceive things differently and you can't just say 'you're dead wrong' in response. As in what you said to matt:
I never spread any message of hatred. That's just how you perceive it, even though you're dead wrong.
Lucky,
Those numbers are very interesting. I ran some myself and found that, according to the fundamentalists, approximately 5 billion people are going to hell worldwide. The total population of the world was quoted at approximately 5,575,954,000 while the world population of protestants (some of them are going to hell too) was just 382,374,000 (based on census). Hmmm, heaven will be sparcely populated indeed.

Numbers from:

The World Almanac® and Book of Facts 1995, Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. Copyright © 1994 by Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved.


------------------
"I'm not confused, I'm just well mixed"
--Robert Frost

[Monty]

Dernheim: well, at least we've gotten Adam's answer to my question about gift. As always, he dodged it. But not too well.

Upon even a cursory perusal of the query as I posted it, one would notice that I said, "I'll not even tell you what language it is." So, that word could mean "present" or it could mean "poison." But it doesn't have those two meanings in the same language. The reason I picked that particular word is English is a Germanic language. Gift in English means present, in German it means poison.

Now Adam, perhaps you've heard that I spend a good deal of time translating in my day to day affairs. I can tell you that a good dictionary is a necessary help to translating, but there is no way to reliably translate using just that dictionary and a total lack of education in the langauges concerned.

You've not only not studied Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, you've not studied the Bible. Heck, you haven't even read the Bible!

What you have studied is what some preacher you believe is perfect spouted.

[threemae]

Adam,

I refuse to believe that if there is a higher power the power would be as unfair as described in many Christian fundamentals. Take the basis of Christianity; if you accept Jesus as your savior, you will not suffer eternal damnation. Because this is so critical to Christianity, all of the Christians I have debated with claim that Jesus presents himself to everyone at least once in their life, however, statistically, people raised in Christian families are more likely to be Christian. Why is it fair that most Christians who will be saved were saved simply because they grew up that way? In the matter of natural born sin, why should an infant who dies at 2 months suffer eternally because they weren’t baptized soon enough and weren’t even cognizant of the idea of god?

Matt: Are you angry at God because of what His word, and what Christians say about gays?

Jess: Yep, I read you loud and clear.

Threemae: You ask:Why is it fair that most Christians who will be saved were saved simply because they grew up that way? In the matter of natural born sin, why should an infant who dies at 2 months suffer eternally because they weren’t baptized soon enough and weren’t even cognizant of the idea of god?
Actually, if I took a poll of Christians around the globe, I'd guess that far more were converted as teens, or adults, rather than being raised that way...especially in other countries where Christianity is the foreign religion. BTW, when I say Christian, I mean Protestant, not Catholic.

As for babies going to hell, I do not believe this is true. God is love, and God is just. There is no way that He could send little ones to hell, when they have no possible idea of how to become saved. Also, there is no Biblical basis to the belief that babies go to hell. But there is evidence that they go to heaven. (I can't recall the verses at this time)

Oh, BTW Matt: I never spread any message of hatred. That's just how you perceive it, even though you're dead wrong.

Adam

[Drain Bead]

Page making fun of Jack Chick:

http://www.brunching.com/features/feature-crusaders.html

I'm not sure why my comment was made into a big deal. Threemae said:Why is it fair that most Christians who will be saved were saved simply because they grew up that way?
To which I responded:Actually, if I took a poll of Christians around the globe, I'd guess that far more were converted as teens, or adults, rather than being raised that way...especially in other countries where Christianity is the foreign religion. BTW, when I say Christian, I mean Protestant, not Catholic.
What's the big deal. If I'm guilty of anything here, it's that I stated the obvious. Of course Christians from other countries were saved through the teachings of missionaries. I understand this.
But in the U.S., I think that many people are saved as teens or adults. And that number may be larger than those raised in the faith.
Let's not forget, that people can be raised Protestant, and then fall away from God. Thus, if they were "re-saved" later, they'd fall into the category of "saved as teens or adults."
Perhaps I'm not making any sense. I think I'll quit while I'm ahead.

Adam

[AuraSeer]

Actually, if I took a poll of Christians around the globe, I'd guess that far more were converted as teens, or adults, rather than being raised that way...

And actually, you'd be quite wrong.

I'm at work ATM and haven't got a cite near at hand, but I'll post one tonight (if no one beats me to it).

[Doobieous]

[QUOTE]BTW, when I say Christian, I mean Protestant, not Catholic.[/QUTOE]

Uh hello?! Catholics ARE Christian. Last time i checked we followed Christs Teachings. Boy i wonder, if we arent Christian then why do we always use gospel readings that talk about Jesus. Oh, and also why do all the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians,Presbyterians and a few of the other charismatic churches (Protestant BTW),follow the Catholic Lectionary (Which BTW pre-dates the Bible as you know it). I agree Adam, you had better quite while you're ahead before you put your foot further into you mouth.

------------------
"Let me show you something
that you've never seen before
like a light im gonna shine on you
forever is a word i dont often get to say
but if you say it loud enough i'll say it too"

[Big Iron]

[[Matt...or anyone for that matter: Do you think that God hates you? Do you think that God hates people? I suspect that some of you are angry with God. And perhaps you could tell me why.]] Arghhhhh!!!


How can one think a being "hates" anything when it is completely unclear whether or not said being even exists?

On the other hand, if "God" as you describe "him" exists (unlikely, IMO), yes, I think "he" is a detestable monster to be hated, opposed, and destroyed to the extent we can do so.

Why? Because "he" is so heinously evil and unjust. "Love me, despite any evidence that I exist, or I'll torture you for eternity."

Adam wrote:

Do you understand this? Do you understand that God loves every person ever created? But can you also understand that He abhors sin? My goodness, it's so simple to grasp, but most of you fail to comprehend it. He loves you, but He hates your sin. He sent Jesus to die for you, so your sins could be covered. That's how you get to heaven. It's easy as pie...no it's EASIER than pie.

I think it's less easy than pie, but a good deal harder than Devil's Food Cake. And forget about brownies, man...they're so hard that they make getting into heaven look easier than chocolate milk...but less easy than buttermilk.

(j/k) I couldn't resist. ;)

[Lucky]

OK, let me try this again.
But in the U.S., I think that many people are saved as teens or adults. And that number may be larger than those raised in the faith.

Now look at this:
The current demographic info regarding religions in the U.S is this:
Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jews 2%, Other 4%, None 10%.
If most of these 56% were adult or teen converts, what were they before? Are you suggesting that a couple of decades ago only, say, 20% of the population were Protestant, and that since then the additional 36% have converted?

***sigh***
Now please tell me you are not so silly as to think this is true. From your post, however, it seems you are referring to conversions to your faith only. You seem to suggest that if someone was raised Lutheran and later came to be a member of your church, that you would consider them an adult convert to Christianity. Wrong!. They were Christians before and are Christians now. What do you call people who convert from Baptist to Methodist? Or how about from Missouri Synod Lutheran to the American Lutheran Church?
What you are really saying is that you think that most people who practice your version of Christianity are adult or teen converts. I'm incliined to doubt this, but I have no statistics and no desire to look for any. On the other hand, I suppose if one had a difficult time finishing high school, one might look for a religion which required very little mental acuity.

Adam I will advise you again that you really should learn how to do some research. It will not serve you well in life to either A) accept what someone else says as true, without looking into it, or B) think up ideas in your head without benefit of facts and decide to believe them.

It is absolutely hysterical to see you berating Monty and claiming that he doesn't understand the Bible when he has actually studied it, while you admit that you've never even read the whole thing!. You go on to insist that he must study the Bible and compare it to the BOM in order to draw a sound conclusion about both works, yet you refuse to do exactly what you request of him!

I'm begining to think you're hopeless.





------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

[Monty]

Lucky posted:
It is absolutely hysterical to see you berating Monty and claiming that he doesn't understand the Bible when he has actually studied it, while you admit that you've never even read the whole thing!. You go on to insist that he must study the Bible and compare it to the BOM in order to draw a sound conclusion about both works, yet you refuse to do exactly what you request of him!

Thanks, Lucky. BTW, sorry about the bolding, etc., not showing up--I just used C&P.

I think we're forgetting that Adam's exemplar of faith and source of knowledge is his 12 year old brother (as Adam told us before). So I guess finishing high school doesn't play into it as most 12 year olds haven't even entered high school.

For real entertainment check the latest Life in Heaven thread in the BBQ Pit. Adam posted, essentially, that he believes the Bible is fiction and I pointed that out. His response to that is underwhelming.

Adam wrote:

BTW, when I say Christian, I mean Protestant, not Catholic.

If I didn't know better, I'd say that John the Cyberian is back, and this time he's got it in for Catholics and Mormons rather than Jews! I can see the title now: Return of the Bigot.

[The Ryan]

ARG220
Member posted 08-06-1999 12:26 PM
“Actually, if I took a poll of Christians around the globe, I'd guess that far more were converted as teens, or adults, rather than being raised that way...especially in other countries where Christianity is the foreign religion. BTW, when I say Christian, I mean Protestant, not Catholic.”

Well, let’s be a bit more precise. If you took a poll, you’d probably find that most Christians believe that they decided as teens or adults to be Christians. But that’s because they are ignoring the indoctrination that they received as children. Basic facts about human nature:
1. Human children , especially those younger than five years old, are very impressionable, and if a child has Christian parents, the child will unquestionably accept Christianity as “truth” , even if the parents do not explicitly tell the child that he/she must believe in Christianity. Even if the child isn’t taken to church, if the parents are Christians, and all their friends are Christians, then Christianity becomes the norm.
2. Humans want to believe that whatever they believe, they believe because of rational persuasion. They are therefore inclined to believe that they believe in Christianity because of decisions made as a teen or adult, and to rationalize their belief in Christianity.


ARG220
Member posted 08-06-1999 12:26 PM

“Oh, BTW Matt: I never spread any message of hatred. That's just how you perceive it, even though you're dead wrong.“

According to your religion, homosexuals and other people that have “offended God” should be put to death. Now, I realize that some people consider killing someone they love to be possible (e.g. Old Yellar, Beloved), but this is not a generally accepted point of view. The fact of the matter is, if you go around saying that it’s okay to kill someone because he/she won’t go along with your religion, the natural response is to say that you’re spreading a message of hate. I don’t see any reason for the rest of us to change our standards of what is acceptable to do to someone you love just because you want us to.


------------------
-Ryan
" 'Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter.' " -Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

Wow. I thought this thread would never see the light of day again, but I guess I was wrong.

Ryan: I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, but "my religion" does not think that homosexuals should be put to death. My religion doesn't think that anybody should be put to death for that matter, as that would be murder. And don't say that "it's in the Bible," because as evidenced in GD (in "Where have all the miracles gone") , your interpretation of Scripture is just a wee bit off.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

ARG says that there is
no evolution & that if people evolved from monkeys there would be
no monkeys. Well, there are monkeys, & we all know that there is evolution, & since ARG
did not evolve from a monkey---therefore ARG is the official
Straight Dope Monkey-Boy & official missing link! Many happy
returns of the day , ARG!

[tracer]

Well, I will say this much.

It is absolutely, positively, 100% correct to say that, based on the overwhelming evidence currently available, humans did not evolve from monkeys.

Humans evolved from great apes (some would even argue that we are still great apes). While monkeys and great apes do share a common ancestor, they branched off from each other before becoming monkeys and apes.

------------------
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.

Ummmmmmmm. Polycarp, I appreciate that fact that you want to help me, but...how can I say this...your post goes against God's Word. First of all, I believe that God loves everybody. I've said it about a million times in my posts, especially my earlier ones back in the Great God Debates. Sure God loves Matt, and He loved Jeffery Dhamer. What He hates in everyone is the sin, and that's why we all need Jesus to cover our sins.

Oh, you know what...I don't want to argue. If you want to know the truth, read Matthew, and John. Those two books cover everything you need to know about the conditions for salvation. You'll find that we DO need to believe, and that NOT everyone is God's child, and not everyone is saved.
I think you're sincerely trying to see the world through different eyes, without abjuring your commendable faith in God. And I think you're having a rough time of it.
You're right. I'm trying to see the world through Jesus's eyes. Because my vision is not good enough. I need His mind, His heart. I must decrease, so He can increase. There needs to be less of me in me, and more of Him. I want to be just like Jesus.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[Monty]

Two things:

Poly: could you expound on what you meant by "they don't make nicer people" in referring to the LDS?

Adam: Again and again we come to the one point you apparently refuse to understand. How can you say that "Those two books cover everything you need to know about the conditions for salvation" when you have not read the entire Bible? You have absolutely no way of knowing for yourself what's in the unread six percent.

since it's only six percent of the Bible, and this is a long weekend, READ IT BEFORE YOU PREACH AGAIN!

p.s. And if, as you just maintained above, that's all one needs to know, lay off the other quotes too.

(This should liven the debate some!)

Monty: What on earth is it with you and that silly six percent? The stuff I haven't read is the stuff in Numbers and Chronicles. I don't think I need to memorize all the members of the house of so-and-so to live a good Christian life, or to be a good preacher. (Not that I am though) Don't get me wrong. Those lists of names in the OT are important, and should be there. But they have nothing to do with what I'm saying here.

I think Poly meant that there are no nicer people than Mormons. It's true too. I've known a few, and they are incredibly nice folks. If being nice could get you into heaven, then all of you Mormons would be set. Seriously, that's a compliment. :)

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[Polycarp]

A bunch of quick thoughts:

Adam, I think the main difference between your world-view and that of the other Christians on the board is that we see a God who loves mankind. Granted, He is distressed by how we hurt ourselves and each other (the only good definition of sin I've run into, except for "what separates one from God," which sort of begs the question). But He loves us, just as we are.

I had a clergyman once who, when stopped by fundamentalists and asked if he had been saved, answered, "yes," and when they asked when, answered, "since Good Friday, 29 AD." The point is that it's His free grace that saves us, not anything we do, including believing. Belief (and good works) are the proper response of people who have come to know Him and love Him back, but that's all they are. We're called to trust in His love. ("By grace are you saved through faith...." -- noting that "faith" is the simple noun for "trust" not the intellectual adherence to dogma in the Greek.)

I have no doubt that God loves Matt_mcl just as he is...except for one thing:
I think he may have a bit of a problem with the Esperanto thing! ;) As for LDS, they don't make nicer people. I disagree strongly with the doctrine of eternal progression, but that's neither here nor there; they're my beloved brothers and sisters.

Flora, have you heard the old canard about the Unitarian who was asked for a simple statement about what Unitarians believed in. His answer: "{long pause} well... a maximum of one god...." :)

Adam, the Bible, as I think you know but haven't put into place, is a collection of writings by a large number of men. You and I believe that every word is there because the Holy Spirit wanted it that way. But, and forgive me for putting it this way, the Bible is not and should not be the basis for your faith. If your faith is not founded in God and God alone, then it is worthless. Anything and everything can get in the way of your relationship with God, and when it does, it's an occasion of sin. The Bible included. Look at how adherence to its teachings has mucked up what you intended to be witness on this board. Again, anything and everything can be a means of fostering your and others' closeness to God. I once used a Motley Crue song as a means of witnessing to a young man I was very close to, and it helped him through a rough time spiritually.

I think you're sincerely trying to see the world through different eyes, without abjuring your commendable faith in God. And I think you're having a rough time of it.

I've noticed several people on this board doing the exact things they criticize you for doing. While this is the Pit, I think turnabout is fair play -- if you don't care for what Adam is doing (or what you think he's doing, you shouldn't do it to him.

Fight nice, kiddies! :)

[speakeasy]

And let us not forget the creed of the crusaders:

Do unto others before they do unto you. Sudden & unpleasant.

Purely unscientific and not researched at all, but I'd bet the rent money that a goodly percentage of the murders and acts of opression in the history of the world have been in the name of one religion or another.

Guess I don't see the light, reverend.

[Monty]

Adam & Poly: I was just wondering what Poly meant. As the statement was worded, it could be construed in two different ways. I'd like to think that Adam finally hit a right answer and that the "they" Poly referred to was the "generic they."

Adam: Maybe the LDS are set after all. Do you recall "by their fruits shall ye know them" or "whosoever comforts the afflicted comforts me?" (That last one may be a paraphrase.) "Silly six percent," huh? Gee, I guess you don't feel compelled "to feast upon every word of the Scriptures." At least not the ones that are too hard to read. Also, I'm starting to think you're getting lessons in the English language from Ben Abbatte and Clay. Nobody said anything about memorizing the Bible; just reading it. Finally, there's no way I'd accept your description of the contents of something you've admitted to not reading. Or don't you recall telling us the Book of Abraham was in the Book of Mormon? And that you will never read the Book of Mormon?

[Polycarp]

Uh...I'll try to respond, verbatim, to the posts directed at my point. This may be a bit long, so, apologies in advance to anyone who doesn't want to wade through it.

LDS: Adam had it right. All the active latter day saints I have ever met have been very decent people who appeared to be acting out of sincere caring for their fellow man. I understand that in Utah, some of them have succumbed to the great sin of a religionist: to impose by compulsion the ethical behavior prescribed by one's beliefs on the populace at large. So they have "blue laws" oriented towards LDS belief on what is proper/improper. But in upstate New York and eastern North Carolina they don't have that sort of political power, and they as individuals are head and shoulders above some bigoted "orthodox" Christians in ethical behavior. That's all I meant by what I said about "they don't make nicer people." (And it was the generic "they" -- read it as Elohim if you like!) :)

Adam, during World War II the Combined Chiefs of Staff (British and American) got into a massive argument about what to do with a proposed strategic plan. It turned out they all meant the same thing, but had used the verb "to table" in two different meanings (British, to lay on the table for immediate consideration; American, to lay on the table as something to be put off; the British and Americans both wanted to move forward on this plan, but the Americans misunderstood the British saying that they wanted to postpone discussion of it.

My intent was to defend to you the universality of salvation. "For God so loved the world...." I.e., there is nobody who is not a recipient of God's love. He loves you, He loves me, He loves pagans, He loves Muslims, He loves atheists, He loved Jeffrey Dahmer and Hitler. (Past tense only because they are now deceased and we're talking from a human perspective.)

Certainly the sinful things we do grieve Him. And certainly we can turn away from Him and reject the love He offers. And He doesn't force anybody into Heaven.

But my point, which is shared by Paul and theologians from Augustine on down, is that it is His action which "saves us" -- brings us into that relationship with Him where we reciprocate His love and find our way to Him. We are all His beloved children (with the distinction of Who Jesus was as opposed to the rest of us; don't drag that red herring into this).

A certain man had two sons.... you know the parable. But have you ever looked at it in its full context? Jesus is not so much preaching the need of the prodigal younger brother to repent and come home, as he is condemning the attitude of the older brother. And the story is told to the Pharisees, who believed that they could be saved by keeping the Law, as opposed to those other slobs who didn't keep the Law and whom God was obviously going to condemn. Adam, my brother, the sound of your posts comes dangerously close to echoing the attitude of that older brother to many ears, including mine. I hope and want to believe that you do not mean what it sounds like you do. That is why I reacted so strongly against what you had to say about who is God's child. What I am saying is that the prodigal never ceased being his Father's beloved son, even when he was off living large on his inheritance. I think you can draw the proper parallel, and would agree with it.

Would you kindly explain what else I have said that "goes against God's word" in your estimation? I ask with a touch of asperity, but with a sincere desire to know where we are at odds. I believe I can learn from you, and hope that you feel you can learn from me. And that is what I believe my Lord and Savior and yours would want us to do.

[Sassy]

Supplied without editorial comment


THE PIOUS AND THE ATHEIST
A very religious man lived right next door to an atheist. While the religious one prayed day in, day out, and was constantly on his knees in communion with his Lord, the atheist never even looked twice at a church. However, the atheist's life was good, he had a well-paying job and a beautiful wife, and his children were healthy and good-natured, whereas the pious man's job was strenuous and his wages were low, his wife was cheating on him and his kids wouldn't give him the time of the day.

So one day, deep in prayer as usual, he raised his eyes towards heaven and asked: "Oh God, I honor you every day, I ask your advice for every problem and confess to you my every sin. Yet my neighbour, who doesn't even believe in you and certainly never prays, seems blessed with every happiness, while I go poor and suffer many an indignity. Why is this?"

And a great voice was heard from above ... "BECAUSE HE DOESN'T BOTHER ME ALL THE TIME!"





------------------
The reason gentlemen prefer blondes is that there are not enough redheads to go around.

[VegForLife]

there is nobody who is not a recipient of God's love. He loves you, He loves me,
Sounds like the best reason of all to be an atheist: Barney is God!

Rich

[vanillanice]

sassy, ROTFL! ha ha.Personally,I have supported arg all over the place,but does he even say thanks or hi,no...I think he just likes to argue with folks who disagree with him.Forget your little supporter over here(myself)arg(sniff,sniff...)

[Polycarp]

Rich, that was hilarious! :)

{{making note to re-re-reread all posts before hitting "submit" button}}}

[Polycarp]

Rich, that was hilarious! :)

{{making note to re-re-reread all posts before hitting "submit" button}}}