badchad, is it one of your goals to convince people that your arguments are correct?
Again, I think he wants you to start a debate thread to not only point out his shortcomings with regard to the literalist argument, but to back up your claims that it’s ridiculous:
Because it makes no sense of the term “Christian.” If I choose to believe in the part of the Bible that allows me to have slaves, and no other part, and I call myself a Christian on that basis, what does the the term “Christian” then signify? Not much.
The word “Christian” means follower of Christ, not follower of the Bible. It’s possible that one could read the Bible and feel an affinity towards the teachings of Christ, but think that guy Paul was a little off his rocker or that the whole “love thy neighbor” thing doesn’t really work with the stoning of the homosexuals.
You didn’t say “start a debate thread,” you just said that he wants to engage in debate. Well, I wrote a heck of a lot more in that post he quoted from, and my next post, than that snippet he quoted. If he wants to debate what I said in those posts, or anywhere else, he can start a GD thread himself.
My text, as I freely admit, is actually a collection of texts written of hundreds of years by different people in different situations with different aims in mind. Nevertheless, they are in many places consistent and backed up by known historical fact. To the extent they are inconsistent, those inconsistencies must either be reconciled or lived with, but they do not IMO, on balance, negate the enormous value of the text itself taken as a whole. You disagree, but as you might imagine, I don’t care in the least.
I don’t consider the Bible “fucked-up” and I’ve studied it as some length. In terms of being a theological text (as opposed to reading it as literature, history, or myth), I cherrypick the parts that make sense to me given what I understand or believe to be the God’s will and plan, assuming that God gave me the intellect and understanding I am applying, and assuming that He wants me to apply them (or He wouldn’t have given them to me). Again, you bring your own unsubstantiated – and as you are fully aware, insulting – prejudices to bear when you insist on describing that process as my “choosing the parts I like and rejecting the parts I personally find uncomfortable.” Much of the Bible that I accept is “uncomfortable” and if I was in it for personal satisfication, I’d chuck those parts. The part about turning the other cheek is consistently tough for me. If my evaluative process was based on convenience, I’d chuck the whole thing out, which obviously would be miles more convenient, comfortable, and easy for someone as dim and childish as lil’ ol’ me. So your conclusion in this regard is both unsubstantiated – because how would you know how I personally got to where I am? – and nonsensical.
Please point out where I have either “privleged” my thought process or devalued yours. All I have ever said is that people who wish to discuss such a personal subject with me have to be minimally civil in doing so. You, like a lot of atheists on the Board, can’t. You just can’t. It’s like my attempting to live a life of faith under a belief system you don’t follow somehow pisses you off – and back we are to flinging poo and expecting me to stand still for it.
It would depend on what passages we’re talking about. For example, I don’t feel as bound by the strictures of Paul’s letters because they are not gospel and were written to specific audiences for specific purposes – namely the preservation of the infant church – and reflect concerns that are different from the concerns of today. While I find them illuminating and useful, I don’t feel obliged to follow their specific strictures when I order my daily behavior. I cut my hair. I speak in church. I believe women should be ministers. I don’t lose sleep because Paul disagrees, because I don’t believe the words of Paul are the words of God; I don’t believe in Biblical inerrancy; and I don’t read the Bible with perfect literalism. You apparently would like to argue that I have to, but I don’t have to, and I don’t. A lot of Christians don’t. Even those who claim the Bible is inerrant and should be followed word for word don’t do so – a vanishingly small number of fundamentalist Christians keep kosher, though that’s clearly set forth in the OT. Ah, they say, the covenant of the OT has been superceded by the covenant of the NT. Well, that’s not in the Bible, either.
“Inconvenience” is not a reason for my belief system and is nothing I ever said, as you know full-well. But the only way you can argue with my position – which I assert on behalf of no one other than myself – is to misconstrue it, so you do. That doesn’t concern me because it’s not my position, so you can argue against it to your heart’s content. Again, you as an atheist what to tell me what I have to believe, you want to tell me why I believe it, and you want to dismiss the process of how I believe it. You question my sincerity and you question my intelligence. You act, IOW, just like the worst sort of prostletyzing fundie; the only difference is the goods you’re peddling.
And I don’t give a rat’s ass as to what impresses you. You are not a person I have tried to impress or am interested in impressing, so if you think that’s on the agenda, don’t hold your breath.
I realize the phrasing is soft; this is because it is not normally an issue, and we do not want to take people to task for using their sig more than once as it is usually accidental. However, there is a strong difference between the standard accidental repetition or not understanding the board etiquette and blatantly continuing to do so after a moderator pointed out you were being inflammatory. I am sure you can understand that.
It would not be off-base to say that the definition of a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the Son of God and died for our sins. The rest is just details.
Wow, Jodi, that was a GREAT post!
“Christian” has no single set meaning anymore that “Muslim” does or “Jew” does. It is a generalized term that means a person who follows the teachings of Christ, but you will find great divergence within different churches as to who is following what teachings, and how. You don’t have to worry about accusing some self-proclaimed Christians of not really being “Christian” – a lot of churches as busy doing that, as well: “‘We’ are Christian and if you don’t believe exactly as we do, you are not.”
Personally, I was raised in the Congregational Church (now UCC), baptized and confirmed a Christian, am an active member of the United Methodist Church, have studied the works that set forth the history and teachings of Christ, and have committed to living my life along those principles. I figure that allows me to self-identify as a Christian. I also figure that I am so obviously a Christian that arguing that I am not is like arguing that I’m not an American although I was born and raised in America, hold American citizenship, and have never lived anywhere else – silly, IOW.
Yes.
Debatable. “All things that offend” sounds a lot like “he looks funny”. I would also expect it to include all gays; since that’s inborn, it would be genocide to kill them all for being gay.
But said “Christians” generally don’t believe in the teachingS of Christ. They have aversions to giving all their stuff away, hating their families, condemning divorces and remarriage, and not saving for their retirements. They generally only want to follow easy sensible stuff like the golden rule and easy nonsensical stuff like loving god, both of which are in the Old Testament.
No, you think the shit you believe in is the word of God, and for no other reason than than it is the shit you choose to believe in. If you could shut your fucking trap about it for two consecutive seconds, I wouldn’t really give two shits about what you do or don’t believe in, but you can’t and you don’t and I therefore treat you with the same disregard and contempt I treat other monomanical babblers with. Welcome to planet earth.
I didn’t think I needed to spell it out. He invited you to.
That wasn’t at all how I took what he said. If that’s what he wants, he should be a little more clear about it. Sounded like nothing more than a sarcastic insult to me.
My suggestion, as a fellow atheist, is that your arguments will have better success convincing people, especially those who are “on the fence” (who are the vast majority of people who might be convinced), if you make an attempt to be less confrontational and less insulting.
Once a person gets into defensive mode, any chance of convincing them of your argument pretty much goes flying out the window, no matter how logicially sound it is.
I admit I’m not always as non-confrontational in my arguments as I could be, as well. But I’m trying, and my feeling is that I’ve had more success convincing people of my points of view when I make an effort to be polite. (Not that I’ve ever convinced a theist to be an atheist, to my knowledge, but I have changed minds on other topics.)
Please consider my suggestion, you appear to have a strong knowledge of the topic, and it would be a good thing if your knowledge were put to more effective use.
Der Trihs, I also ask you to consider being less confrontational.
Changing minds is more important that mentally scoring points on a message board.
I don’t think any atheist is telling you what you have to believe. Were just saying that what you Christians believe (fundamentalist, liberal, and/or you Jodi in particular) is irrational, and sometimes hateful.
Wow, can that statement be a bit more idiotic? how else would Jodi believe in something? Should she instead follow what others do? Shouldn’t she read all sides with an open mind and choose the path that fits her best? if she didn’t wouldn’t you then consider her a sheep?
You act like badchad, but lack the vocabulary, or wit, to pull it off. Please, please, tell us how else Jodi should pick her faith and belief system? she should she instead listen to you? follow your path? Would that make her less full of “shit”?
My apologies to Jodi, I dont know if you are a she so forgive me if you’re not.
“Thoughts & Prayers” basically extends to the whole human race, religious and non-religious. You seem to be overly obsessed with the “Prayers” part, while totally disregarding the “Thoughts” part. The statement I made is intentionally made to be a blanket statement because I do not NEED to know whether the person is religious or not, nor do I need to inquire, but I just want to wish them well. I have said this statement to many people IRL and on here and you are the first to take issue with such a simple statement. I will take your judgment and advice under consideration when there are more people with the same reaction as you versus those who had no problems with it. Right now, you are very much the minority.
I would love to spend countless hours here, but time does not allow it…hence I try to keep it short and sweet. Thoughts and “reflections” for you, Beau…with sincerity.