Look, you silly twat. She didn’t say “participating in Christian fellowship”, she said “participate in the fellowship of the Christian Church” Don’t try to twist this around. I suppose you’ll say she was referring to some metaphorical Church! Of course! You mindless cross worshippers and your metaphors. You guys just love those, because they allow you to twist around anything to anything you want it to be. A real easy way to deflect criticism. Unfortunately if your belief system can be construed in any number of ways, then it loses all meaning and credibility.
It’s a shame you can’t see that your faith is bullshit. But you will soon.
Yes, because the coming revelation of your utter reason and correctness is so astounding.
By the way, woosh over what Tranquillis said. He said that you still could not proclaim someone not to be a real Christian. Let’s work on reading comprehension here.
The Church, of course, is comprised of all worshippers of Christ, whether they ever step foot in a church building or not. Unless you think that when the Roman Catholic Church refers to itself as such, they’re referring to a building. Then again, given the level of utter stupidity I mean trollery which you’ve demonstrated here, you probably do think that.
N.B. Personal to Jodi–given my cringing when I saw you referred to by the pejorative above, I can only imagine how much worse it must have been when I addressed you with a much fouler word some time ago. If I never did it before, I apologize for that.
Eternal Student, you claim to be an agnostic, but you can’t be. I think it’s pretty well accepted that all agnostics are bouncy bouncy tennis balls. Tennis balls can’t use computers. Therefore, by my decree, you are a imposter agnostic.
Church does not always mean “building” you ignorant cum stain…and it’s not some contrived “meataphor”…
Why look kids…its m-w.com…and right here is their definitio of “church”
Main Entry: 1church
Pronunciation: 'ch&rch
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Late Greek kyriakon, from Greek, neuter of kyriakos of the lord, from kyrios lord, master; akin to Sanskrit sura hero, warrior
Date: before 12th century
1 : a building for public and especially Christian worship
2 : the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
3 : a body or organization of religious believers: as a : the whole body of Christians b
Do you see definition #3 you piece of shit? Do you see that it refers to a “body of believers” and NOT a fucking building? In other words, “participating in the fellowship of the Christian church” does NOT automatically mean plopping ones ass in a building.
Umm ok. So we have this great big body of believers, right? And they want somewhere to go worship and pray, right? So where do they go? That’s right! To a FUCKING BUILDING. Same shit. So I could have rephrased the original question to the professor:
If someone does believe jesus was the son of god, and they are guided by the “holy spirit”, but they don’t associate with a large body of believers, can we then safely proclaim that they are not real christians?
Umm ok. So we have this great big body of believers, right? And they want somewhere to go worship and pray, right? So where do they go? That’s right! To a FUCKING BUILDING. Same shit. So I could have rephrased the original question to the professor:
If someone does believe jesus was the son of god, and they are guided by the “holy spirit”, but they don’t associate with a large body of believers, can we then safely proclaim that they are not real christians?
Arturo is a brilliant poster.
Um, has Wildest Bill gotten his Ph.D. yet? Has Esprix declared his lust for Jennifer Lopez? Has Olentzero joined the John Birch Society?
Look, you clueless moron. Neither “participating in Christian fellowship” nor “participating in the fellowship of the Christian Church” means routinely attending a particular actual, physical church. I realize that is what you would like to say it means – or, rather, that you would like to say that’s what she said it means – but it ain’t. The part about twisting things is amusing, though. Y’know, the whole pot-kettle-black thing.
:: Shrug :: Dunno what she meant. I thought you’d asked here.
You moronic waste of carbon and your narrow world-view. You just love to tell us what we love, and what we think, and what we have to belief in, because then you can twist Christianity around to anything you ant it to be. A real easy way to manufacture facile and harmless criticism – since you’re not actually attacking anything resembling what you purport to attack. And we don’t worship crosses, dipshit. You may think that’s a great insult but it actually illustrates the main point: When you so obviously don’t have the first idea of what you’re talking about, then your insults don’t mean much. They just show how far your head is up your ass.
Okey-dokey. I love a challenge, and dark predictions of doom always give me a pleasant little shiver. So I’ll wait here. Bring on the faith-breakers! I must warn you, however, it’s been tried before, and by people a hell of a lot better than you at attacking the weak points in Christianity – which Lord knows exist – and at slinging around cutting insults.
You mean you’ll leave??? You tease! You know you’re not going to leave, you’re just playing with us. But don’t do give in! Have the courage to stand by what you’ve said! Show us all – show us by contemptuously leaving us in our ignorance and stench! We deserve it. Go on. Buh-bye.
You’re aces with me, PHIL. You never apologized directly, but I’m glad to accept it now, and may I say it shows class to have said it. The “twat” comment didn’t make me mad, but what you said did. This kid’s got a pea-shooter, you had a cannon. Insults are worse (better?) when administered by people who know what they’re talking about, and who are worthy of respect. That’s why I can’t break a sweat in this case.
You know what? It’s not that easy to define “Christian”. As has been pointed out there are many sects and many philososphies that have eveolved over 2000 years. And there has been and is plenty of debete over who is a “true” Christian amoung Christians themselves. For example, Polycarp might have a hard time thinking of, say, Fred Phelps as reallly being Christian. Fred certainly wouldn’t consider Poly to be.
However A) that does not render the word meaningless any more than “love” is meaningless because it’s hard to define.
B) how is the question of what is a Christian answered by you deciding that one particular group- Bible literalist, Fundamenalist Christians are the only real ones and everybody else is faking it?
Why choose them? Why not say Polycarp’s is the true Christianity (as I would dearly like to believe)? After all the Fundamentalist pick and choose what they want to believe, too.(Do you really imagine otherwise?)
Bruce Bauwer wrote a very interest book (which I know you’ll be interested in, since as an Eternal Student you are always trying to expand your knowledge of the world :rolleyes: ) called “Stealing Jesus” because he was concerned that the Fundamentist “Church of Law”, as he put it, would become synonymous in peoples minds with Christianity, overshadowing the “Church of Love” (more Polycarps style) despite it’s long tradition in Christian thought. Apparently his fears were justified.
False Christians indeed!
(Oh, and Exprix, where do I submit my credentials to become a True Heterosexual?)
Well no they don’t have to go somewhere else to pray asswipe. Many pray at home…alone…Some go online to forums like the Pizza Parlor to pray or discuss their faith.
Most Christian churches (the RCC is the example I’m most familiar with) recognize that “fellowship” extends way beyond being in the same building with people. Indeed, the RCC recognizes the “communion of saints” linking present members with those already deceased.
So your initial assertion that one must attend services in a physical church to be considered a “Christian” is demonstrably false. Whether you will admit that is a different story
Nice swipe at my typo by the way…certainly hope all your posts have been typo free as well :rolleyes:
Oh…my…god (if I’m allowed to say that) I can’t believe I actually predicted EternalStudent’s response.
This is where I give up. If EternalStudent honestly believes the things he is saying it’s cruel and in bad taste to keep egging him on like this. I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have made fun, my mother raised me better.
Your thread title is totally incorrect (though at least you got the “wrist” right).
Either Jesus was
(a) On your understanding of reality, a man whose sincerest religious beliefs, for which he was willing to risk his life, fell to shit as he was dying in agony;
(b) On traditional Christian views, somebody who was willing to give up his life in order that others might come to believe in God and find their way to the new life he promised them;
You’ve been called names on a message board for having the temerity to stand in judgment over me, by a wide assortment of people who for some reason or another like me :o You can shut off your computer and go out and do something for mankind. You can study (you do call yourself a student) and perhaps learn something of what you’re belittling. You can read around here and see how people really think. It’s fascinating, and deeply moving, to read the record of their thoughtfulness and interaction, and how it’s possible to learn from each other.
There’s just one point I’d like to address from your OP here:
I would never want to be a slap in anybody’s face (although some of the things you’ve said are tempting me ;)). Most of the Biblically-oriented Christians I’ve talked to agree with me on the primacy of commitment to Jesus, and respectfully disagree on the proper interpretation of the Bible. I’d like to ask you to come back to GD and deal with how you see my version as “twisted.” I’m not out to hurt anyone, nor do I feel I’m remiss in my commitment or moral duty. I believe that what you’ve done is to define Christianity as Biblical literalism and Jerry Falwell’s “ethics” and then reject them, and see me as clinging to a halfway house. What I’m doing is taking their perversions of a 2,000-year-old system which I accept and commit my life to, and rejecting them with a clean heart.