Holy shit. A miliant agnostic. Didn’t think I’d ever meet one of those. 
And you, I suppose, are the one to decide what that definition is? Hey, how 'bout we see who Christ said were his followers? Funny, but I don’t recall JC ever saying, “If, and only if, you believe the Bible is literally true in all ways are you my follower.”
[Edited by Gaudere on 10-16-2001 at 10:48 AM]
Hey, EternalStupid?
Shut the fuck up.
M’kay?
Esprix
god you’re an idiot…
**
You just answered your own stupid question. You are always born into your race. But you are NOT always born into your religion. Sure, sometimes you are. But religion is a belief system, and one can choose to believe anything. Get it now? Good.
It’s pretty well known that the chrisitan belief is that the world is about 6000 years old, and that man coexisted with dinosaurs, and lots and lots of other silly things.
As for the Vatican viewpoint, the only reason they changed was because there was too much proof of heliocentrism. Discounting this would have discounted catholicism. So they adapted. Which means before then, catholicism taught bullshit and was worthless.
**
[/quote]
Your arguments seem baseless. **
[/QUOTE]
Things are not always what they seem.
I thought a faggot was a bundle of sticks?
Eternal Student-you’re an idiot. I guess then, we must conclude that ALL agnostics have to be idiots, huh?
Oh is it that simple?
Let’s look at the word “incorrect”
in - means ‘not’
correct - means ‘right’
so “incorrect” means “not right” … easy right?
Now what about “inflammable”
now remember, in means ‘not’, flammable means ‘able to catch fire’
so something inflammable is not able to catch fire right?
** WRONG **
it means the exact opposite.
So what was the point of this whole exercise?
**to prove to your simple ass that the meanings of individual parts of words do not necessarily come together to give the meaning of the entire word **
you’ve been proven wrong. be gone.
I’ll return the compliment.
Ok. So people who ARE born into a religion and follow the religion they’ve known since birth are idiots. IS this a belief you hold?
‘It’s pretty well known’ Sorry, that’s not good enough. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT THE EARTH IS ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD?
This passage ('But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. ’ 2 Peter 3:8 NIV) which is OBVIOUSLY self-contradictory and should be seen as a point that timeframe is meaningless.
So then the Vatican still contains ‘real christians’ even though they picked and chose what to believe? But us non-clerical types aren’t allowed?
Maybe you should restate your case.
:rolleyes:
“the christian belief”? There’s only one school of thought on this issue amonst all christians. Please, elaborate - I’d just love to hear some justification or citation for that.
And sometimes they are. Funny old world, eh.
Wow, I went through years and years of Catholic school, and I must have missed the day they taught us that man lived with the dinosaurs…
You are an eternal dipshit.
C’mon, gang, this guy’s yanking us. Don’t feed him.
EternalStudent, I can’t really comment on this whole Polycarp thing since I haven’t spoken to him and apparently he’s a god among men. As far as your complaint about religious standards goes, I think I understand what you’re talking about. Most of the Muslims I know drink alcohol quite freely, claiming that the Quran forbids intoxicating substances so if you take care not to get intoxicated it shouldn’t count. Sometimes I wonder why they bother to call themselves Muslims since they obviously pick and choose where it comes to the actual tenets of their religion. They say that the Quran consists of “guidelines” and not actual commandments. I think this too, and I think it of all religions, so why should I say that I belong to one and not another? I can just choose to believe whatever I like in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. But in my experience I’ve come to see religion as a cultural thing. For the most part, people belong to a certain religion because their parents did. I know that you are against organised religion. My boyfriend and I are too. The difference between us is that I believe that the existence, in increasing numbers, of moderately religious people is a step in the right direction. He finds it less impressive, because he fears a mentality in which people think that all religions are essentially the same, but that it is immoral to have no religion at all. At the very least, I think all three of us should agree that the fewer religious fundamentalists there are in this world, the better.
Er, well, no.
These beliefs are held by a depressingly large and vocal minority of Christians in the United States, and by a much smaller minority of Christians in the rest of the world - I believe there’s been a thread recently on the demographics of Young Earth Creationism, but I’ve abused the search engine enough for one day…
…trying to find, amongst other things, this thread, which includes some thoughts on this particular debate, and in which several believers made their views plain. (Including me, by the way.)
I’m sorry, but the simple fact is that the majority of Christians do not believe as you say we do. You can quote counter-examples - Christianity includes a wide range of differing viewpoints, some of which may seem strange or extreme to you, or to me for that matter. But we can safely say that those are minority viewpoints.
If you want to say that Young Earth Creationists are stupid, that’s a different matter, and you might get a lot more agreement that way. But to say that all Christians are Young Earth Creationists, and therefore stupid, is simply not true.
It is exactly that.
::: looks up from her marking ::::
::: looks at her business card ::::
Yeah, I’m a religious studies prof. You have just flunked the exam I gave my first year students in world religions.
There are well over 2000 religious organizations out there that are built upon Christian foundations.
The standard definition of Christianity is the following: It’s the religion of those who accept Jesus Christ as God incarnate, are guided by the Holy Spirit, and participate in the fellowship of the Christian Church.
You know what, EvilStudent? That applies to every christian group out there - be they believers in the exact words of the bible, or just the general precepts of the faith.
By your reasoning, we could say, for example, that the U.S. is the source of the only true english language. The brits, you see, don’t really speak english - they’re fake english speakers! If they were real english speakers, then they would have the same accent the americans do, and would use the same vocabulary… but… Their accent is all wrong, and the words they use are sometimes rather nuts. Same goes with the Canadians. And the Aussies. And especially those pesky South Africans. And the Scots. And the Irish… and the Newfoundlanders - let’s not forget them!
Christianity has many faces, many different belief structures, and many depths of interpretation.
Get your head out of the sand.
Being an atheist doesn’t give you the right to declare someone a “true” believer or a “false” believer. Hell, I’m a bit of an atheist myself.
It’s all about diversity. Things are neither black, nor white. As an Eternal Student, you should always remember that.
Vale.
Elly
This is going nowhere.
It seems like the majority of you think that as long as you believe that jesus was the son of god, you are a christian. The rest of your beliefs don’t matter. You are free to pick and choose as you wish. So if you believe that jesus was the son of god, and you sacrifice small goats and children to jesus, then you’re still a good christian. As long as you got the jesus thing, you’re good to go.
I don’t buy this at all, and have no respect of the beliefs of those who do. And further, I claim that people who contort chrisitanity to fit their own beliefs are simply scared. Scared to proclaim that their beliefs do not lie within an organized construct. They need the acceptance, so they run under the christian umbrella.
These are my views. And I’m not a christian.
Amen.
thinks someone got in way over his head…
I’d love to give you a boot in the ass on your way out the door… but that just wouldn’t be the christian thing to do, now would it? 
Take care, ya’ll!
(in the future, bring some cites with you)
promise? :rolleyes:
Fuck me, a study in bathos.
In short, your beliefs and claims as to what defines a christian are unsubstantiated and poorly thought through. Sophomoric attempts at philosophy are dull. So are you. Toodles.
I can’t speak for the US, but here in Scotland, If someone is Jewish then that, in law, is both their race, and their religion.
I don’t think any Christian would argue that this is all that is required to be a Christian (Satan believes the very same thing) but I will state that it is an essential belief to have.
As interpretation of many parts of the Bible are open to different conclusions, then I think it fair to assume that these matters are not essentials to salvation, despite the heated debate that many Christians (and non-Christians) engage in over them. I have a certain viewpoint on evolution/creation. I do not accept that another person who has accepted and follows Christ who differs from my viewpoint is going to Hell.
John 3:16 sets out what is required to be a Christian - I trust you don’t need a link!
I will leave the obvious irony of this to those more experienced in the Pit than I.
ETERNALIDIOT –
I’m going to use small words, because I have read this thread to date, and I have concluded that you are not nearly as smart as you think you are. So here we go: You do not get to decide who is or is not a Christian. The end. You do not get to use your own handy little definition – apparently based on absolute slavish devotion to Biblical literalism – and then announce that anyone not meeting your definition is a hypocrite or worse. Why? Because you’re not in charge of what a Christian is.
Make no mistake: You’re “little diabribe” was not “mildly inflammatory;” it was highly insulting to a person of faith. You attacked the sincerity of POLYCARP’s beliefs; you accused him of “fence-sitting” in his faith; and of doing the “bare minimum” required to get into Heaven. You presumed to tell us all what he thinks and then based upon that presumption – which you had no right to make – to grossly distort his views. Frankly, it is difficult to imagine how you could have insulted him more than you did.
He never said “I don’t believe in that part of Christianity.” He believes in all of Christianity as he understands it and accepts it – that just doesn’t include such beliefs as "the world is only 6000 years old. You can only accuse him of being selective in his beliefs when you take it upon yourself to tell him (and the rest of us) what those beliefs must be. But, of course, you have no right to do this.
YOU DO NOT GET TO DECIDE WHO DOES AND WHO DOES NOT HAVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINTS. What is so hard about this? I am a Methodist. We Methodists are not Bible literalists. Neither are Presbyterians, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Catholics, or AME’ers, to mention only a few. According to you, apparently, we are none of us Christians, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Clinging to this view makes you look stupid, not to mince words; it’s the equivalent of declaring that people who live in Buffalo are not New Yorkers because you personally have decided to define “New Yorker” as “someone living in New York City.”
Boy, you really are dense. Here’s a tip: To a dedicated Christian, telling him that he is a “half-ass Christian,” or co-opting his name as a label for what you call half-ass Christians, is not a “slight elbow-jab;” it is a gross insult.
Well, boo hoo. I believe he is entitled to believe whatever he chooses without your approval or attack. Not to mention that his beliefs are well-reasoned, which you’d know if you knew the first thing about him, which of course you don’t. Though it amuses me to see you accuse him of “squandering” his intelligence, as if he’d be so much better of following your shining example. You have exhibited neither intelligence nor civility nor grace. I can certainly see why you’d want his intelligence on “your side,” however; it would represent a quantum leap forward in the intelligence department.
Again, so you say, apparently using your Junior G-Man Pin as authority to decide who is or isn’t intelligent, or a Christian.
See “No True Scotsman” fallacy, listed above, for why this is on its face incorrect.
Actually, I’ve chilled out quite a bit since reading your posts in this thread. You are apparently not able to reasonably defend your position (which it turns out is based on your own personal defintions), not really up to speed on the use of logic, and you appear not to know much about the very thing you’re attacking (as ELENFAIR points out). It turns out that your position is indefensibly oversimplistic and based on (a) distortions that are obviously untrue (“no intelligent Christians”) or (b) your own personal opinion, which, since you’re apparently not terribly bright, I find myself less and less concerned about. As far as being a “half-assed Christian” is concerned – since you have defined “half-assed Christian” as “a Christian like POLYCARP,” I have to say that, no, I’m not a half-assed Christian, though I wish I were.
You should! You and he are going to get along great. He’s been very lonely, crying in the wilderness about how much we all suck (though, strangely, he doesn’t leave, though he threatens to). Now he will have you to play with.
You viciously attacked the one aspect of that “wonderful person” that makes him who he is and that is most important to him. Regardless of what you might think of me or others, believe me when I tell you that you did a great wrong to a very, very good man by questioning the sincerity and depth of his faith. I am willing to believe, based upon your posts here, that you did not intend to do so – that you are either not smart enough or are too self-centered to realize that something that is not insulting to you can nevertheless be a gross insult to someone else – but make no mistake: You did.
It is possible to debate and discuss the validity (or lack thereof) of Christian thought and belief without descending into insult and indefensible generalization. Possible for some, I mean; apparently, not possible for you.
ok, so then if someone accepts jesus as the son of god, is guided by the “holy spirit”, and doesn’t go to church, then can I then proclaim that they are not real christians, professor?
**
So which one makes it into heaven? That’s the goal, right? The very existence of so many competing sects of christianity simply shows how convoluted and meaningless it all is. People just believe what they want. Period.
**
Agnostic, professor, as I clearly mentioned earlier.
**
Oh I definitely understand this. But it is an overwhelming christian belief that non-christians are doomed to hell. I think the concepts of hell and heaven are probably universal in all christian sects. So in this respect, things are very black and white. Either you go to heaven, or you go to hell.
Aaaah those silly cross worshippers!