Joe, I want to acknowledge that I have read your post, and (following some good advice) want to respond not in anger but with patience and explanation.
But for a good short one-line answer to much of what you say, look at the last paragraph of Doc Cathode’s 10-9 10:48 AM post above. That says a lot about my stance.
Well, not exactly. I mean, pretty much everything he says about Catholicism is false, and in many cases, logically impossible, but I think Chick believes it’s true. I had, at one point, the interesting experience of talking about history with someone who believes what Chick believes, and he told me that all “secular” history is inherantly unreliable, and history only makes sense if you see G-d’s message running through it. So it is, I think, with Chick. “Truth” and “lie” really become meaningless in a case where conclusions come first, and then history is judged by however it lives up to existing ideas.
On the topic of picking and choosing from the Bible, I think that the Christian “liberals” (whatever that means) often do more soul-searching and genuine researching, reading, and learning about the Bible than the Literalists. I for one struggle with different interpretations and try to find underlying themes, and some topics I will probably never know the answers to, but what I do know is that what some people find “obvious” is anything but to me. It may be obvious to you because you want it to be, but the Bible is such a complex book I don’t see how anyone can expect even two people to read it and come away with exactly the same experience, much less the entire population. In fact, to take the Bible at simple face value is impossible for me, because there are passages that say (apparantly) contradictory things. The Bible and God’s message (which is not limited to being revealed in just the Bible) are an ongoing process for me.
When it comes down to it I don’t even feel qualified to judge other people, and I don’t understand those who do. Of course we all have out own moral codes we live by, but God is the only one who can see our hearts. Yes, I believe God can and does judge us, but I don’t know how. And I don’t think he needs my help. In the end, I am responsible for my life and my actions, and you are responsible for yours. What that responsibility entails is not up to me.
A Lie (noun) is a Lie whether the speaker believes it to be true or not. To Lie (verb) requires an intent to deceive.
So the question is, does repeating Lies (pl. noun) make one a Liar, even if you believe them to be true?
Shodan, you’re exactly correct here, and I have only two things to say, other than an apology to her and to all others whose feelings I’ve hurt (yep, that means you, engaged couple of conservative Christians). First, by what His4Ever was doing, and there have been others doing likewise in the past (Wildest Bill immediately comes to mind), she was (and they were) IMHO going against the direct commandments of Jesus – by the tone of their posts turning people away from Him, and (again IMHO) misrepresenting His teachings. I was, and am, angry about those Christians who do this sort of thing – they’re free to hold any view they want, but their job, like mine, is to bring people to Christ, and if insisting on a given point (whether true or not makes no matter to this) is serving to drive people away rather than bring them towards Him, they’re doing wrong by that very fact. Joe Cool, does that help to explain my stance and my past anger in such situations? I admit I’m human – things anger me and I do sin against others, this being a good example – and in this circumstance I got really bent out of shape by a set of “drive by Scripture quotes.”
Secondly, I tried to answer her in many of my posts from a sense of where she was coming from – disagreeing, to be sure, but with an attempt at discussing this as two Christians who don’t see eye to eye on an issue, not in a flamefest. I’m ashamed I didn’t do that in all of them. But it’s one of my great weaknesses that people hurting other people in the name of my Lord truly angers me, and on this issue, where I feel a definite call to try to communicate across the breach between most gay people and most Christians, it particularly upsets me to see anybody just throwing out sound bites instead of trying to communicate – which is a two-way street.
Grienspace, that was beautiful.
Quixotic, this is truly amusing to me – though your point about people’s views of God reflecting their own personality is, in general, a valid one. But in my particular case, I know better – because I was a very naive, egocentric, introverted individual who didn’t care much about the pain around me for a long time, including being a legalistic jerk after my conversion, until God put me into a set of experiences that had a drastic change on who and what I am. So in my case, at least, it works the other way around – He reshaped me, not I conceived of Him in the fashion my superego thought to be right.
“Listen to me! I have the inside line on what Jesus taught and what God wants!”
“No, listen to me! I’ve got the skinny on how to get to Heaven!”
“No, ignore those two! I am the one with the correct interpretation!”
Is it any wonder that people like me choose to get off that merry-go-round?
Oh, do you? Do I? Or who was it who said "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
[/quote]
This is no longer true – even though you meant it ironically, you will probably remember a time when any expression of a religious faith led to putdowns. Times have changed.
There’s some truth here. Although people are entitled, based on my observation of board custom, to assert an unpopular opinion if they’re prepared to argue in its defense. However, I do take your meaning, and I admit my error in being condemnatory of her – and of your intended.
See kingpengvin’s post. Kindly respond with any arguments you think may be valid as to why Chick cannot be considered to be a willful liar as regards, e.g., Catholicism.
“With scriptural backup”?? Hey, if I were to claim (which I obviously don’t) that I have proof Jersey Diamond is a portly 80-year-old bald man who delights in trolling by impersonating a conservative Christian woman, and you are sitting there looking across the room at her and half a dozen Dopers have met her at various events, you don’t need Scriptural proof to tell me that I’m a liar and a bearer of false witness about her.
Jack Chick has stated things about what Catholics believe that half a dozen Catholics have stated are wrong, with cites to official teachings. Likewise about what Mormons believe, with Monty doing the honors. If everything he said about Christianity were Biblically sound and in accord with Christ’s teachings, he’d still be a liar and a bearer of false witness for what he had to say in those two cases.
Pardon me, but “the Bible” doesn’t have a view, clear or otherwise. What it has is a set of words, written by Moses, Matthew, Luke, Isaiah, and a bunch of other people, which you and I consider to be “inspired by God” – though I gather we differ a bit in what we understand that phrase to mean.
The apposite passages in Leviticus give a command and a punishment to the Children of Israel. Taken by itself, the only person here that I know of as having any concern about that passage is Doc Cathode (there may be others, but I’m not aware of them). As for Romans, I’ll refer you to andygirl’s discussion of her spiritual and psychosexual development, in a Pit thread I hope somebody links to for me, and ask you to review that and show me precisely where she turned away from God, preferring the things of this world, and had lusting for women inflicted on her as a result. Or, perhaps, you too might consider a retraction and apology to be in order?
Finally, unless you feel that it would be appropriate for me to characterize you as hate-filled and a few other appropriate terms, I will thank you to immediately retract your “kinder, gentler, and watered down” remark. I am as staunch in my beliefs as you – we disagree on what Christ commanded as most important.
No, a lie is a false statement made with intent to deceive. It implies intent.
Polycarp, my post was not written as a personal attack against you, but it does sum up my view of your stated opinions. I know well that you reject the authority of the Bible, which is the source of most of our disagreements, and precisely my point in this case.
I was mainly making a point about the “fan club” mentality around here, and the worshipful esteem in which said fan club holds you.
I also meant to express my vehement disagreement with the liberal brand of christianity that you espouse, and your tendency to creatively interpret your way around plain language directives.
At best, it is ignorant to say that the Bible has a neutral or positive view on homosexuality - at worst it is dishonest. In several threads around here, including the one you started yourself, it has been shown that everybody seems to see the Bible’s clear negative attitude regarding homosexuality, but you and other liberalized Christians repeatedly deny it.
Another example: Recently I went round and round with Libertarian regarding John 14:6, where Jesus said “No one comes to the father but by me.” He continues to insist that the passage actually means “No one comes to the father but by Love,” which is clearly not the case.
You and I both know that we disagree strongly on a number of important matters. I hope you understand that I was not attacking you as a person, but speaking against your stated beliefs.
If I caused you to feel any personal affront, then I apologize sincerely - it was not intentional. While I think you are misled on a number of issues (and you surely believe the same about me), I think you’re a pretty nice guy, even if somewhat annoying at times. 
Guinastasia, just out of curiosity, when and who proved it to be a fraud. I’m just interested in reading up on that.
cjhoworth, what does your clinical depression have to do with this? I am sorry you have/had a problem, but I really don’t think it’s relevant.
No problem or experience anyone will ever have will even be remotely close to the torture of hell. Just like no experience of good and love can compare to that of being in the presence of God.
Actually, this isn’t always the case:
Also:
Joe_Cool and Jersey: are you Biblical literalists?
If so, then you know what my next questions are ( do you advocate killing witches, etc.)
Libertarian: You really show the love of God in your posts.
good job, faithful servant.
Guess I need to add a bit of a follow-on here. In H4E’s case, it just doesn’t matter if what she’s been touting (Chick’s garbage) is true or not. What matters to her is that it condemns those she doesn’t like. It’s the hatefulness of the words, not the veracity of the statements she regurgitates, that is of importance to her. I consider her to be telling lies, based on def 1b quoted above, becuase of her complete unconcern about the truth of her statements. To me, that’s the difference between telling lies and merely being mistaken.
Sorry, I didn’t think it was necessary to point out that every individual member of a group doesn’t necessarily take on every aspect of the group’s behavior.
There is a great deal of difference between defending an unpopular viewpoint and what happened with H4E.
I do appreciate the apology, and so does JerseyDiamond.
Like I said, I’m not a big fan of Chick and can’t speak for what he’s said, not having read much of it. BUT, perusing his links, I did notice that quite a bit of what chick said regarding Catholic teachings agrees with a great deal of reading that I’ve done. I’ll concede that it may be in dispute, but the RCC is far from having clean hands. It most certainly does have a history of brutal persecution of the Jews that far predates Hitler’s rise to power. I agree that some research is in order, and I’ll reply again once I’ve done it. Probably in the next couple days.
The opinions of a few posters don’t mean much regarding the teachings of a 900,000,000 member worldwide entity whose actions throughout history don’t bear out those opinions. I once read a little book called Foxes Book of Martyrs - a book which chronicles a great number of the Roman Catholic Church’s exploits. through the centuries (as well as those of some other groups, but the RCC figures prominently throughout). I’m sure you’ve read it, as it contains, among other things, the story of your namesake. The church is not the God-serving entity that it claims to be. I do not doubt that there are many devout Christians in the church who love God dearly, but I absolutely question its claim to divine authority.
You gather correctly. We disagree here, since I see the bible not as the collected writings of these guys, but as the Word of God as written by the Holy Spirit, through these guys.
No, I don’t believe a retraction is in order. I’ll not apologize for reporting, correctly, what the Bible says about homosexuality. I read andygirl’s post, and agree that it’s sad. However, I’m not here to debate what’s sad and what’s not. As I said, I’m simply stating that the Bible calls certain behaviors sinful and abominous, and that is one of them. I like andygirl, and I don’t doubt her faith in God, and if she says she’s saved, wonderful! But that does not mean that everything about her is A-OK anymore than my salvation means I’m perfect. We all know I tend to be easily provoked, and I answer rudely and in anger all too often. Though my sin is forgiven, that does not make it the less sinful.
I don’t think you can honestly call me hate-filled, any more than I could say the same about you. I don’t hate you a bit, and I think you know that well.
We certainly do disagree, and our differences are fundamental. You cannot talk about God’s love and neglect his holiness. You cannot talk about his mercy and neglect his justice. In other words, you cannot present a flat, two-dimensional view of God’s person and still serve him in the way that you desire. Yes, emphasizing the love and mercy, and deemphasizing everything else will certainly draw more people to him, but they will be drawn to an incomplete image of him, not to the true God.
Again, I did not intend any insult to you, and I apologize again if you perceived any and for the times I’ve posted to you in anger. Like I’ve already said, I like you and think you’re a good guy, but I can’t retract, my opinions regarding your statements and your misrepresentation (IMO, of course) of God’s person and his nature. There, it appears, we will always differ.
Allright, this thread had some potential originally. It could have been a nice thread about the “liberal Christians” and whether they are being willfully blind to aspects of their religion, and more importantly why they are doing so.
Unfortunately, it has all the makings of another imminent pile-on over the issue of homosexuality. If there’s one thing this board has simply done to death in the last couple months, it’s that. Heck, I’m willing to bet this board has done that one to death for years before I got here. Surely there can’t be a single person on this board who doesn’t know every point and counterpoint in that exchange by heart, who doesn’t find the entire thing mundane and predictable.
I also see some nasty anti-Catholicism brewing here, and that’s been done to death too. So has the ensuing, obligatory “I’m a Catholic, we believe no such thing, your books are crazy” statement.
I think this thread answers the query posed by another, namely “are we already in hell?” Yes, we are, and our punishment is to relive the same stupid and pointless arguments about sexuality, Jack Chick, and Catholicism over and over until we kill ourselves to stave off the torment.
**
Just to play, err, devil’s advocate, doesn’t this makes you sound like a used-car salesman? While I suppose a certain amount of tact is always nice, is it really appropriate to tell people what you think they want to hear rather than what you believe to be the truth? If God really said something, ought you to be editing it?
I’m a bit troubled by the idea that being upfront about your religion and its implications is a problem because it drives away potential converts – that’s the way cults operate. Why not just lay out the whole package and let God, as it were, sort out the innocent?
[QUOTE]
*Originally Of course, H4E, if you are still on the Boards, chime in.
I’m still visiting the board…just observing
Libertarian said:
Jesus said:
Gosh, which one should I listen to?
Lib, if you’d like to refute me, I’d appreciate it if you responded with some sort of scriptural support, and not with another one of the pseudo-religious sound bites that you seem to enjoy posting.
And once again, Truth Seeker: hear hear.
A Christian’s job is not to win converts - that’s the Holy Spirit’s job, and he does it quite a bit better than any of us could ever hope to. Our job is rather to spread God’s message – All of it.
Jersey-I’ll look it up-there are also some discussions about it on the board:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ343.HTM
Joe_Cool, as someone who has been brought up Catholic, in a Catholic family, who attended Catholic school, Jack Chick’s so-called “truths” about Catholicism are not.
Catholics do NOT:
Worship saints
Pledge loyalty to the Vatican as citizens
The church did NOT create Lenin and Stalin-both were-HELLO!-RUSSIAN ORTHODOX! The church did not condone the Holocaust, nor do we consider the Pope to be a God, or infallible. (ex cathedra is not about the Pope being infallible).
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160_07.asp
Chick is trying to make it look as if we are saying the Pope is not a sinner. Nope, sorry, that’s not what ex cathedra means!
HE states that the Vatican is the Whore of Babylon, the Pope is in league with Satan…um, Joe, the man is a hateful bigot. I find him personally offensive. He’s no better than David Duke, as far as I’m concerned.
He accuses the Jesuits of being behind the Lincoln assassination (according to the first page on Rivera), the Holocaust and the Soviet Union. If I were a Jesuit, I’d sue him for libel.
[nitpick] Stalin was Georgian Orthodox (as a boy anyway).[/nitpick]