I go to a public, liberal university. We've been talking a lot about God in my history, philosophy, writing, and psycology course, but we haven't even mentioned evolution in my science classes. Are the fundies gaining ground? :eek:

Originally posted by notPresidentAndrew
I go to a public, liberal university. We've been talking a lot about God in my history, philosophy, writing, and psycology course, but we haven't even mentioned evolution in my science classes. Are the fundies gaining ground? :eek:
The study of evolution, in particular at the scientific level goes in contradictions with most popular religions. Could that be a possible cause?

Originally posted by Microzoft
The study of evolution, in particular at the scientific level goes in contradictions with most popular religions. Could that be a possible cause? What does that have to do with not mentioning evolution in science classes?

take a hike troll
feeding time is over

spookz,

That's not helpful.

Actually, they're losing ground. As religion is relegated to the courses you mentioned, it is often in the form of examining the role of religions in the histories of each discipline; for instance, what is the religious contribution to Victorianism, the social rigidity of which led to such disorders as Sigmund Freud would document. I can't say whether or not your coursework follows such a progression, but by and large this is a positive thing, the opening of religions to academic examination. Many of the things we learn about religions would have been outside the range of acceptable discussion in days past.

The appearance of fundamentalist gain comes from a number of factors. Certainly, there are a lot of them, and what with televangelism, Chick tracts, and political movements aimed at polarizing the least-educated portions of our society, there ought to be a lot of them. But their political influence is waning as the number of prominent and respectable representative minds decreases with time. And so the fundies are left to their political causes as the only way of affirming their faith. Hence they seem to be everywhere--my drugs, music collection, library, sex life, political affiliations, and dietary habits are all regarded as "sinful" by various fundamental Christians. While this sort of demonization works on the undereducated and superstitious, it certainly turns off the more enlightened minds who often would not have attained any sense of enlightement without drugs, music, good books, lots of sex, liberal political affiliations and offensive diets. So in the end, when fundamentalists call for a religious assertion (Creationism) to be given the same weight as the scientific process, when fundamentalists insist on reenacting social failures (sex ed, safe sex) and only have their narrow Biblical interpretations to bolster their cause, when fundamentalists insist that their free speech is violated by the possession of the same rights by non-Christians, when fundamentalists spend their efforts on internecene strife, when fundamentalists justify bigotry, when fundamentalists .... At any rate, all of this negativity with nothing but fanatical religious faith to legitimize it. Think about it. Wave after wave of ridiculousness by a desperate and incompetent lobby. Their numbers are probably growing, but their power isn't, as none of the body faithful has a clue how to properly exploit that political voice. It doesn't inspire the educated and sane to take part.

Watch carefully: they're doing what any losing empire does--getting louder in their dismay.

And that's about all they're doing. I can't think of a single social issue broached by fundamentalist Christianity in my lifetime that has actually favored the Christian perspective.

It's ugly, I know. But I recall Bugs Bunny taunting, "Mommy, look at the funny fish!"

Fundamentalist Christianity, especially within a political power balance, reminds me of a Looney Tunes cartoon.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

if god exists he made the world like it is and we are just exploring it right?

then why are cirten people against science?

gods not going to care if we find out what he used to make the world

"my drugs, music collection, library, sex life, political affiliations, and dietary habits are all regarded as "sinful" by various fundamental Christians. "

what dietary habits are considered sinful?


"While this sort of demonization works on the undereducated and superstitious, it certainly turns off the more enlightened minds who often would not have attained any sense of enlightement without drugs, music, good books, lots of sex, liberal political affiliations and offensive diets."

Are you saying that that you were 'enlightened' by drugs? kinda like the people who claim to have cloaned the first human who believe they were told how by aliens in the 70's???? Christians are not against music, books, or politics, lots of sex is also fine as longs as it is within a marriage and i still dont know what diets you're talking about!

"So in the end, when fundamentalists call for a religious assertion (Creationism) to be given the same weight as the scientific process..."

we ask that because its hardly fair to tout the THEORY of evolution as fact and not even mention the creationism theory

what dietary habits are considered sinful?Depends on who you ask. But I've alternately heard from various Christians criticism of my consumption of pork, caffeine, certain cheeses, and from the ascetics, any food that generally tastes good. Nothing is quite as amusing to a 10 year-old as watching a friend's eyes bug out and then they burst into tears because they didn't realize the drink in their hand had caffeine in it and now they're worried for their very souls. Seriously--people teach their kids all manner of crazy stuff.Are you saying that that you were 'enlightened' by drugs?Well, there is that, but it's actually beside the point. There are plenty of intelligent, good people who are reminded daily by various Christian groups that they are evil and wrong because they smoke pot, listen to Marilyn Manson (in my day it was Twisted Sister and Judas Priest, and then 2 Live Crew). Plenty of literate people get tired of being called sinful degenerates because they read a given book--ever listen to a Chrisitian protesting a book in a public library?

In the meantime:

- Music: I'm quite sorry, but it has not been atheists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, witches, Navajo, &c. who have told me that this or that music is "bad for good people" and meant only for "degenerates" that society doesn't need. One of the classic moments of the 1980s censorship battle was Prince Albert (Gore) asking Dee Snider of Twisted Sister to talk about the fan club. S.M.F., Mr. Snider informed then-Senator Gore, means "Sick Mother Fuckers", or "Sick Mother Fucking Fans of Twisted Sister". Gore's response was a wisecrack: "I take it that's a wholesome Christian youth organization?" Add to that input from the "Moral Majority", who held sway until Falwell's crash from glory in the 1980s and I think the case gets even stronger. There was Bob DeMoss, a former rock and roll DJ who, in the early 1990s led high school students to protest concerts by Poison because they offended Christian values and sensibilities. Or perhaps Bob Larson, now a self-declared exorcist, a master of the ellipsus, who used to print as little as half the lyrics of a song in order to demonize it and appeal to parental "common sense". Maybe the moralists in South Carolina and Virginia who sought to ban Marilyn Manson from performing in their areas?

I'm well aware that Christians are not "against music, books, or politics", but:

- Who was it, again, that called for the burning of Harry Potter novels? Oh, yeah, those pesky Hindus.
- Who was it that petitioned the Salem-Keizer school board to remove Robert R. McCammon's "Demon Walk" from the high school library because the presence of a book with the word "Demon" violated her First Amendment rights as a Christian?
- How is it that the most Christian album I know of comes from a band decried in the 1980s as Satanic? (Savatage, "Streets: A Rock Opera")
- I've never heard an atheist call the Democratic Party the party of the devil.
- It wasn't a Jew who got so pissed at a library book in Springfield, Oregon, that a ten-year campaign ensued to chase gays out of the state. Millions of dollars were wasted, felonies were committed, and amid it all, two people were murdered for the crime of being gay and offending Christian sensibilities.

You're changing the conditions when you defend Christianity against the assertion that it is against music, books, and politics. What you should be considering more directly is the fundamentalist tendency to lay seige against the First Amendment, demanding that books, music, and politics meet a standard of Christian satisfaction. This repugnant, anti-expressionist behavior goes on today. lots of sex is also fine as longs as it is within a marriageTwo funny things occur to me:

- Joke: How do you cure a nymphomaniac? Marry her.
- On a more serious note (barely)--"Within a marriage" would work better if people were allowed to get married.

Of that last, what you're overlooking is that Christians set limits on "marriage".

But as to sex: Marriage is a farce. The last numbers I saw, from about 1999, collected by a Christian research group, made the shocking suggestions that Christian marriages break down faster than other marriages, and suffer a higher divorce rate. Getting laid ain't worth that much trouble, especially in the age of internet porn and personal-lubricant ads on television.

Furthermore, though, let's look at the Christian record on sex:

- Heterosexuals only (almost universal among Xnty)
- No artificial birth control (Catholics and a few others)
- No sex ed for sexually-active youth (fundamentalists promoting ignorance)
- Attempted prevention of proper medical training in the state of Oregon (Oregon Citizens Alliance, a Biblical-advocacy group)

Now, perhaps, New Life, you are puzzled because you've never burned a book or demanded a person be denied civil and human rights based on the gender of their sexual partner. But, at 29 years old, I can honestly say that Christians have, for my whole life, been bitching and moaning about sex, art, speech, and politics, and have been demanding a supremacist standard before they are satisfied that Christianity is fairly respected in society.

- Andre Serrano's "Piss Christ"--if ever the Christians shot themselves in the foot, this was the occasion. It wasn't that great a photo. Most people don't know what they're looking at until they're unfortunate to ask.
- Two musical endeavors I can think of off the top of my head that were condemned in their day by the California State Legislature as being Satanic (a little undue political influence there if we're condemning publicly according to Christian standards?): Styx, for "Snowblind", an anti-cocaine song; and Peter Gabriel, which makes even less sense once one listens to "Solsbury Hill" and "Here Comes the Flood".
- Rev. Donald Wildmon, calling on Christians to boycott Disney for extending benefits to "domestic partners".
- Jerry Falwell, adulterer, criticizing "Hustler" magazine.
- Ronald Reagan failing to account for the AIDS epidemic, since HIV was "God's punishment to gays", or, "the Gay Measles".

What? This is all during my lifetime, and I've not lived that long.we ask that because its hardly fair to tout the THEORY of evolution as fact and not even mention the creationism theoryMany non-Christians agree that the Genesis story belongs in schools. Right alongside a diverse assortment of creation tales from other religions around the world as part of a social studies curriculum. But it turns out that many Creationists want their ascientific assertions to be taught as scientific fact.

I can't recall ever being taught that evolution was pure fact. I think that assertion is a myth invented by desperate Creationists. I've always known that the theory is incomplete. However, I have yet to see any other theory which comes close to describing what takes place in the world to the same degree of accuracy.

And on that note, Christians ought to cease treating the Theory of Evolution and the scientific process itself as closed and finished processes. I realize that no truly new knowledge about God has emerged for two-thousand years or so, but the scientific method is an unfinished process, and its data set will continue to grow so long as there are people to observe things, and things for people to observe.

Seriously--when you wake up tomorrow, will there be a new chapter in the Bible, teaching us what we didn't know about God before? No.

When you wake up tomorrow, will there be new scientific information teaching us what we didn't know about the Universe before? Yes.

Do you see how those conditions are different?

Or when someone insists that dinosaurs and humans coexisted because of some tracks in the floodplain in Texas: What would you like me to think when a Creationist tells me that "erosion" is too wildly speculative a factor to include in any theory explaining the proximity of these tracks? I don't have to leave the house to see erosion taking place. But apparently, erosion--and especially in a floodplain--is too rare an effect to be included in any hypothesis? Come on ....

And I realize that these people I'm describing must sound like complete idiots to you. But here's the kicker: They all identify themselves as Christians, and cite their faith as one of their motivations.

So the question, then, becomes: "What am I supposed to think of all this?"

Really. Seriously.

29 years, and the worst dispute I've ever had with a Jew was about using salt or sand on the roads in winter. 29 years, and the worst dispute I've ever had with a Muslim was about who started the fight with the Sikhs in India. 29 years, and the worst disputes I have with atheists are largely existentialist and matters of human integrity. 29 years, and Christians have constantly been condemning me and many others for the things that have taught us and helped build our characters and capabilities.

In terms of the evangelical assertion in my prior post, I think I can stand by it. Fundamentalism turns intelligent people off. Why? They're tired of being abused by Christians. If salvation turns a person into a prig like Falwell, why would anyone take the offer?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiassa
[B]Depends on who you ask. But I've alternately heard from various Christians criticism of my consumption of pork, caffeine, certain cheeses, and from the ascetics, any food that generally tastes good. Nothing is quite as amusing to a 10 year-old as watching a friend's eyes bug out and then they burst into tears because they didn't realize the drink in their hand had caffeine in it and now they're worried for their very souls. --


You're talking about mormons and jews there, neither of which are christians....... according to the bible (i know you all must hate that phrase but too bad) Jesus said to the Jewish leaders that it doesnt matter what you eat because food just passes thru your body and leaves again, its what goes thru your mind that matters, it is also often said that God put the food on earth for us to eat so why not eat it? I dont know any true christians who have anything against any food based on religion.


listen to Marilyn Manson (in my day it was Twisted Sister and Judas Priest, and then 2 Live Crew).

I'd rather not listen to him, he's sick by any standard!


Plenty of literate people get tired of being called sinful degenerates because they read a given book--ever listen to a Chrisitian protesting a book in a public library?

I've heard old (ie 70+) people complaining about lots of books too, some are just plain offensive! also, pleanty of times I've heard christians asking why there arent christians books available (ie christian fiction), but thats just b/c its difficult to find that type of book anywhere because of all the non-christians complaining about too many religious books! It goes both ways



----In the meantime:

- Music: I'm quite sorry, but it has not been atheists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, witches, Navajo, &c. who have told me that this or that music is "bad for good people" and meant only for "degenerates" that society doesn't need. One of the classic moments of the 1980s censorship battle was Prince Albert (Gore) asking Dee Snider of Twisted Sister to talk about the fan club. S.M.F., Mr. Snider informed then-Senator Gore, means "Sick Mother Fuckers", or "Sick Mother Fucking Fans of Twisted Sister". Gore's response was a wisecrack: "I take it that's a wholesome Christian youth organization?" Add to that input from the "Moral Majority", who held sway until Falwell's crash from glory in the 1980s and I think the case gets even stronger. There was Bob DeMoss, a former rock and roll DJ who, in the early 1990s led high school students to protest concerts by Poison because they offended Christian values and sensibilities. Or perhaps Bob Larson, now a self-declared exorcist, a master of the ellipsus, who used to print as little as half the lyrics of a song in order to demonize it and appeal to parental "common sense". Maybe the moralists in South Carolina and Virginia who sought to ban Marilyn Manson from performing in their areas?----

That is against certain artists, NOT music in general..........music is meant as a gift to the world (according to many christian beliefs) in fact, the book of Psalms is a song book (all of it is songs), music is one of the many ways to worship God so christians cannot be against it and be following biblical principles at the same time! However as I stated before, some artists (like Marilyn Mansin) are just plan sick and people with any moral values should be appalled! (I felt this way LONG before I was a christian)



---- How is it that the most Christian album I know of comes from a band decried in the 1980s as Satanic? (Savatage, "Streets: A Rock Opera")---

Maybe you havent tried enough artists, there are many christian bands and albums available.........POD is a great example........also try Five Iron Frenzy, Relient K, Lost Coin, etc,



----- On a more serious note (barely)--"Within a marriage" would work better if people were allowed to get married.----

thats a whole different issue

Of that last, what you're overlooking is that Christians set limits on "marriage".

----But as to sex: Marriage is a farce. The last numbers I saw, from about 1999, collected by a Christian research group, made the shocking suggestions that Christian marriages break down faster than other marriages, and suffer a higher divorce rate. Getting laid ain't worth that much trouble, especially in the age of internet porn and personal-lubricant ads on television.----

can you reference that? I hadnt heard that.....at any rate, divorce is not acceptable according to more fundamental christians as well as catholics so are those so called 'christian marriages' actually christian? the census was recently completed here (canada) and it revealed that many people call themselves christians but do not practice religion, therefore they arent actually christian, so all studies should keep that in mind.


---- No artificial birth control (Catholics and a few others)---
most christians think pre-conception birth control is fine, its abortion and the morning after pill that are 'wrong' because they are considered murder


---- No sex ed for sexually-active youth (fundamentalists promoting ignorance) -----
Christian youth arent supposed to be sexually-active......and all my christian friends are well versed in the various forms of birth-control

---- Attempted prevention of proper medical training in the state of Oregon (Oregon Citizens Alliance, a Biblical-advocacy group)----
Whats that about? I"m not from the states and havent heard of this

---- I can honestly say that Christians have, for my whole life, been bitching and moaning about sex, art, speech, and politics, and have been demanding a supremacist standard before they are satisfied that Christianity is fairly respected in society.----
once again, are they really christians? a lot is said/done in the name of Christ by those who dont actually follow him!

---What? This is all during my lifetime, and I've not lived that long.Many non-Christians agree that the Genesis story belongs in schools. Right alongside a diverse assortment of creation tales from other religions around the world as part of a social studies curriculum. But it turns out that many Creationists want their ascientific assertions to be taught as scientific fact. I can't recall ever being taught that evolution was pure fact. I think that assertion is a myth invented by desperate Creationists. I've always known that the theory is incomplete.
----

I WAS taught the theory of evolution as fact!!! so why cant the creation theory be taught as fact as well? in my opinion both should be presented, holes and flaws and all but neither as absolute fact


---And on that note, Christians ought to cease treating the Theory of Evolution and the scientific process itself as closed and finished processes. I realize that no truly new knowledge about God has emerged for two-thousand years or so, but the scientific method is an unfinished process, and its data set will continue to grow so long as there are people to observe things, and things for people to observe.----

as I stated in another thread somewhere, Religion explains they 'why' of the universe, Science explains 'how'....science is great, it allows us to understand how this came about or how that works, but religion tells us why it came about or why it exists, otherwise there's no reason for anything



----Or when someone insists that dinosaurs and humans coexisted because of some tracks in the floodplain in Texas: What would you like me to think when a Creationist tells me that "erosion" is too wildly speculative a factor to include in any theory explaining the proximity of these tracks?----

Thats a new one to me! in one of the old testament books there are references to large monstrous creatures that could be described as dinosours along with the humans so why should they say that its not possible for a dinosour and human to have walked near each other? that argument doesnt make sense! it sounds like it came from someone who has no idea what they're talking about!


---And I realize that these people I'm describing must sound like complete idiots to you. But here's the kicker: They all identify themselves as Christians, and cite their faith as one of their motivations.----

once again you have to first determine if they are truly christians (and first you have to define christian)

In terms of the evangelical assertion in my prior post, I think I can stand by it. Fundamentalism turns intelligent people off. Why? They're tired of being abused by Christians. If salvation turns a person into a prig like Falwell, why would anyone take the offer?

Salvation hasnt turned people into prigs, people have turned people into prigs! (assuming that prig is the same as prick).....what bothers me is when people who say they are christians do/say all sorts of things that go against the bible which is SUPPOSED to be their guide to life/God and then justify it by using the bible!

sorry bout the length!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by New Life

a lot is said/done in the name of Christ by those who dont actually follow him!

once again you have to first determine if they are truly christians (and first you have to define christian)

Salvation hasnt turned people into prigs, people have turned people into prigs! (assuming that prig is the same as prick).....what bothers me is when people who say they are christians do/say all sorts of things that go against the bible which is SUPPOSED to be their guide to life/God and then justify it by using the bible!

Hello New Life -

You've hit the nail squarely on the head with these replies!

I say it's (once again) time for a 'PROTESTant' revival amongst "true Bible believing and practicing Christians" who aren't afraid to stand up and speak-out against those who claim the name of Jesus Christ, yet live a lifestyle that is in stark contrast to His teachings, example and message.

Since accepting Jesus as Lord over 16 years ago, I've seen an ever increasing level of apathy in the Christian Church towards 'Pseudo-Christian' religions and the ramifications of doing so have become clearly evident. And, political correctness theories (born in the 1990's) have unfortunately infilitrated the Christian Church. It surely didn't help matters that our President for much of that time claimed to be a practicing Baptist, yet acted as though he were a heathenistic pagan. What message did that send to non-believers?

However, I think there is a silver lining to the formentioned situation. What has and is happening continues to visually seperate the "sheep from the goats," and this is good since it will be VERY important for true-believers to know whom their actual brothers and sisters in Christ are, as the coming of our Lord draws ever closer in these end-times we're living in.

Stay strong in your Faith and use the shared knowledge and conviction of the Holy Spirit to guide your thoughts, words and actions in everything you do. Remember, there is POWER in the blood that Jesus Christ shed on our behalf! And that power is something that no man can ever take away from us.

In His Name ~

Disciple of Jesus

Thank you DoJ

I dont think we need to creat anymore churches (there are too many to confuse the athiests already) however we need to promote unity among the chruches........find out which ones are the sheep and which the goats and cut the goats out

Originally posted by New Life
Thank you DoJ

I dont think we need to creat anymore churches (there are too many to confuse the athiests already) however we need to promote unity among the chruches........find out which ones are the sheep and which the goats and cut the goats out

New Life -

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. When I speak of revival, I'm referring to an individual or "personal revival of Faith" amongst true-Christians, that when put into practice would enable non-believers to recognize the obvious difference between those whom simply profess Christianity and those who indeed follow and share It's teachings. Also, doing so would then in turn create the unity you speak of.

May God bless you with His graces -

Disciple of Jesus

VERY important for true-believers to know whom their actual brothers and sisters in Christ are, as the coming of our Lord draws ever closer in these end-times we're living in.
Are we not all brother an sisters. Remember the prodigal son.:D

would enable non-believers to recognize the obvious difference between those whom simply profess Christianity and those who indeed follow and share It's teachings
If you have a thinking mind it is not hard do see. Though many "False believers" claim to be the "True believers". It is all subject to individuality. Unity will not come with out acceptance of the individual. The Idea of true and false believers will only hinder yourselves on your respective paths. Unity comes through acceptance of differences not a Faith Revival. All are not build the same all will not believe in the same way. How do you know the heart of the faithfull. One may appear to have faith but have none at the core of his being but one who appears to have little faith may in the end be the most faithful.

find out which ones are the sheep and which the goats and cut the goats out I am sorry I do not understand why you would want exclusive unity. Accept the goats live with the goats love the goats that is the way to unity. How can you have true faith or have your faith tested for that matter if you remove all that would challenge it. How would you learn those valuable lessons of faith? Even if one doesn not believe in the same manner as you, you may learn an invaluable lesson from them. It is all what you are receptive to.
a lot is said/done in the name of Christ by those who dont actually follow him! Do you really have to have effort to follow the "way of Christ". TO my perception I though it was the manifestation of all that which is good inside you. That good is an inherent part of you so why would you need to create strife and seperate you from that goodness. To attain it is to be yourself accept who you are. Only the can you have genuine love affection, or even faith. If you are beside yourself in your faith it will not be true faith. How can you have true faith unless you are at one wiht yourself and existance?What message did that send to non-believers? Even if you believe yourself that you are right. Do not act in egotisme by labeling people and calling them not believers. Act with humility even if you believe yourself to be right. You close your mind and heart and act out of selfish arrogance.

Let he who is with out sin cast the first stone.;)

Originally posted by Empty Dragon
I am sorry I do not understand why you would want exclusive unity. Accept the goats live with the goats love the goats that is the way to unity

There is difficulty sometimes distinguishing between unity and uniformity. The answer is that all will be known by there fruit. Good fruit cannot come from a bad tree, and likewise bad fruit cannot come from a good tree.

Actually, my whole purpose in life is to become so much like Christ, that the fundies will burn me at the stake :)

There is difficulty sometimes distinguishing between unity and uniformity. The answer is that all will be known by there fruit. Good fruit cannot come from a bad tree, and likewise bad fruit cannot come from a good tree.

That statement seems subjective.

Originally posted by Empty Dragon
That statement seems subjective.

Actually, it's Romans 15:5 and Matthew 7:17-19. And yes, it is subjective. But from a Christian paradigm (and some others) the knowledge of whether the fruit is good or not will be provided to you.

Clearly, the fundies do the opposite of creating healing and unity in American society, or in the church. Anyone who is familiar with the dynamics of the Southern Babtist Convention over the last 30 years would have trouble arguing this point.

Originally posted by tiassa
Actually, they're losing ground. Watch carefully: they're doing what any losing empire does--getting louder in their dismay.
I agree with this, but I think the major force for this dynamic is coming from within the conservative christian movement rather than the liberal institutions of non-seminary higher education. After all - only Nixon could go to China.

[edited for grammer and missing words]

Actually, it's Romans 15:5 and Matthew 7:17-19. And yes, it is subjective. But from a Christian paradigm (and some others) the knowledge of whether the fruit is good or not will be provided to you.

I am not debating whethere you know or not. What struck me is that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree. It seems to me that it can. Good fruit cannot grow on a bad tree. To me it seems that it can. What tree it is spawned from is usually where it ends up but not the rule.

Originally posted by Empty Dragon
I am not debating whethere you know or not. What struck me is that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree. It seems to me that it can. Good fruit cannot grow on a bad tree. To me it seems that it can. What tree it is spawned from is usually where it ends up but not the rule.

Greetings Empty Dragon ~

My message is and will remain the same; Christians need to be more discerning in what they accept as being Biblically aligned theologies and practices. Futhermore, when Christians view what is "out-of-line," they need to speak against it. Jesus did, and through His Church He has and will continue to do so. This is what's right for the Christian to do and there can be no compromise, for we're not acting on our own accord nor for our own glory.

For a better understanding as to where I'm coming from, read 1 Timothy 4.

In His Name ~

Disciple of Jesus

---Are we not all brother an sisters. Remember the prodigal son.:D

*once he came back he became a brother :D (we're talking about a different type of sibling here)

----If you have a thinking mind it is not hard do see. Though many "False believers" claim to be the "True believers". It is all subject to individuality. Unity will not come with out acceptance of the individual. The Idea of true and false believers will only hinder yourselves on your respective paths. Unity comes through acceptance of differences not a Faith Revival. All are not build the same all will not believe in the same way. How do you know the heart of the faithfull. One may appear to have faith but have none at the core of his being but one who appears to have little faith may in the end be the most faithful.

*the unity i speak of is more that all the churches stop fighting between them and work together to reach the non-believers......how can we send a good message unless we are trying to practice what we preach?

---- I am sorry I do not understand why you would want exclusive unity. Accept the goats live with the goats love the goats that is the way to unity. How can you have true faith or have your faith tested for that matter if you remove all that would challenge it. How would you learn those valuable lessons of faith? Even if one doesn not believe in the same manner as you, you may learn an invaluable lesson from them. It is all what you are receptive to.

*do you know what we mean by 'the goats'?

--- Do you really have to have effort to follow the "way of Christ". TO my perception I though it was the manifestation of all that which is good inside you. That good is an inherent part of you so why would you need to create strife and seperate you from that goodness. To attain it is to be yourself accept who you are. Only the can you have genuine love affection, or even faith. If you are beside yourself in your faith it will not be true faith. How can you have true faith unless you are at one wiht yourself and existance? Even if you believe yourself that you are right. Do not act in egotisme by labeling people and calling them not believers. Act with humility even if you believe yourself to be right. You close your mind and heart and act out of selfish arrogance.

*it is effort because of all the bad stuff that is going on in our world........and I am my truest self with my God.......so what do you suggest we call them?? its not being egotistical to say someone is an unbeliever, it is simply describing them.....I do not mean it in an holier-than-thou way!

---Let he who is with out sin cast the first stone.;)

I'm not stoning anyone! I'm saying we need to work harder at being united and doing Gods work on earth!

I understand and realize the need to speak out for what you believe to be right. Though what I am commenting on is segregation. Be sure that while you act you do not become elitist.

Futhermore, when Christians view what is "out-of-line," they need to speak against it Speaking out openly is much different then condeming and judging. Though it can be a fine line. Even if you believe yourself to be right act humbily because there may be yet more that you do not understand. With out humility egotism tends to run rampant. Egotism can corrupt an other wise benevolent nature.

This is what's right for the Christian to do and there can be no compromise, for we're not acting on our own accord nor for our own glory. Unless you are the son of God how can you say for certain what is best for a Christian to do? Thus anything you assert is likely to be flawed since you are human. Good intentions pave the road to hell. There are many instances where men in thier foolishness commited deplorable acts in his name. I just recommend being humble so as to avoid that same path.

Becarefull what you claim is in his name.

once he came back he became a brother Then you missed the point. He was a brother all along that never changed. The point was the unconditional love. That is the lesson. Love thy neighboor, have unconditional love for all things.

the unity i speak of is more that all the churches stop fighting between them and work together to reach the non-believers......how can we send a good message unless we are trying to practice what we preach?
Agreed but it would be wise to practice all with gentle patience. Especially to those who think differently then you.

do you know what we mean by 'the goats'?
To my understanding it ment those who are not sheep?

it is effort because of all the bad stuff that is going on in our world........and I am my truest self with my God.......
What is happening in the outside world is regardless of the point. You have a connection with God so why would you allow anything to disturb your serenity? To fill yourself with strife is to seperate yourself from god. That connection and state of being does come without effort because it is truth right? Do you need effort for the truth to be true? It takes effort to sin. It takes no effort to accept forgiveness. To my understanding the essence of the human spirit is kind, loving, gentle, forgiveness, harmony and clarity. Strife will separte you from that nature. The first step is to stop eating the apple.

so what do you suggest we call them?? its not being egotistical to say someone is an unbeliever, it is simply describing them.....I do not mean it in an holier-than-thou way!
I suggest you simply accept them as they are. The road to salvation is open to all so if they make that choice it is their choice. Whether they believe or not really does not concern you. I am sure it will pain you to see them make that choice but it is there choice. Do not despise them for turing away love them as they leave and pray that they may find there path in life.

I'm not stoning anyone! I'm saying we need to work harder at being united and doing Gods work on earth!
Be concered with changing yourself first. Speak with an open heart but do not try to change other unless you can be with out sin.

Originally posted by Disciple of Jesus
Greetings Empty Dragon ~

My message is and will remain the same; Christians need to be more discerning in what they accept as being Biblically aligned theologies and practices. Futhermore, when Christians view what is "out-of-line," they need to speak against it. Jesus did, and through His Church He has and will continue to do so. This is what's right for the Christian to do and there can be no compromise, for we're not acting on our own accord nor for our own glory.

For a better understanding as to where I'm coming from, read 1 Timothy 4.

In His Name ~

Disciple of Jesus

I Timothy 4:6 If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.

I interpret 'the brothers' in this instance to mean fellow Christians. Everything through 1 Timothy 5 indicates that the writer is addressing believers. If that is all you mean then more power to you. But if you are talking about speaking out against non-believers, then please point me to the biblical justification for this action. To my knowledge, the only people that Jesus spoke out against directly were fellow Jews who were hypocrites. Please instruct me if I am wrong.

You're talking about mormons and jews there, neither of which are christians.......Presumptuous of you. No, I'm not.

And, incidentally, Mormons are Christians. Just not your preferred type of Christian, but there's nothing like a good round of exclusionism to start off the post.I dont know any true christians who have anything against any food based on religion.Do you know any true Christians, period?

Sorry, but I love that adjective: "true".

I mean, I can point out some freakish diets of Seventh-Day Adventists and so forth, and one can argue that it's more an advisement than it is a holy law, but the simple fact is that the people don't necessarily take it that way.

Would you please define a true Christian, and give me some idea of how many there are? Because I've got this image in my head of an old Greek man with a lantern. I'd rather not listen to him, he's sick by any standard!Isn't that beside the point?I've heard old (ie 70+) people complaining about lots of books too, some are just plain offensive! also, pleanty of times I've heard christians asking why there arent christians books available (ie christian fiction), but thats just b/c its difficult to find that type of book anywhere because of all the non-christians complaining about too many religious books! It goes both waysWhere to start?

•_You know, if you know me well enough, you'll hear me complaining about various books. It's part of a human being's birthright to have an opinion. But I won't ever say that something shouldn't be printed. I'll even go so far as to admit that the public is best off without some information, but I won't stop people from printing it or reading it. And if something ever horrifies me so greatly as to demand its expungement from the human experience, I would hope to have better reasons than my own opinion of it.

• You know, I've never witnessed a book burning put on by atheists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, pagans, &c. I probably missed a couple of torchings of The Satanic Verses, but Rushdie survives a death sentence and I'm happy enough about that. But to my common experience, only Nazis, Stalinists, and Christians burn books regularly.

• I despise the American economic priorities. However, this time they clearly explain part of what you're complaining about. If "Christian" books sold better than they do in general bookstores, the bookstores would order more of them. Consider Bob Larson's Dead Air, Frank Peretti's mysteries, and those insane books about the coming apocalypse whose author and titles I thankfully cannot remember? Of those last, I see them at every bookstore I go to except for the mystics. I see them at Costco, Fred Meyer, Wal-Mart ... just about everywhere I go. Add to that the general Christian media presence: Satanists do not get their own section at Dalton's or Waldenbooks. You can certainly make an argument that these books shouldn't be sequestered as they are, but if they're not, they don't sell at all. If the books sold better, they would integrate, just as those that do have in the past and will continue to in the future. As it is, the segregation of certain Christian volumes is a smart business move because customers for those books like having them gathered together, and don't seem to want to have to pick through shelves lined with the latest Martin Greenburg anthology of erotic horror fiction. In addition, I might point out that my child's maternal grandfather sent us a satellite dish designed to receive only Three Angels Broadcasting Network, one of at least three nationwide and international US-based Christian television networks. Televangelism is a multibillion-dollar industry in this country. Has it occurred to anyone why it is ironic that The Simpsons has been pointed out to be one of the most "Christianized" television shows on the air? Eyes shut, hands clamped over their ears, shouting ceaselessly, it's no wonder why some Christians feel so isolated.That is against certain artists, NOT music in general..........music is meant as a gift to the world (according to many christian beliefs) in fact, the book of Psalms is a song book (all of it is songs), music is one of the many ways to worship God so christians cannot be against it and be following biblical principles at the same time! However as I stated before, some artists (like Marilyn Mansin) are just plan sick and people with any moral values should be appalled! (I felt this way LONG before I was a christian)Those "certain artists" (A) have every right to be as they are, and (B) have those rights for the same reason you are allowed to find them sick and depraved.

Think about this: Nobody's saying you can't be appalled. But what people are saying is that you can't censor them. These Christians who have so stained the reputation of their faith essentially demand that their right to free speech is only secured when others are disallowed the same right.

Often, the objectors to a Twisted Sister or 2 Live Crew or a Marilyn Manson end up making a bigger deal out of what they find objectionable than anyone else. The PMRC's targeting of 2 Live Crew, coupled with the arrests of Luke "Skywalker" on multiple occasions in Florida, pushed 2 Live's record sales through the roof. A "Parental Warning" sticker became a badge of pride. Marilyn Manson rode the controversy from NIN sideshow to Antichrist Superstar. Twisted Sister? Come on--a bunch of New York guys originally in drag, and then in ribbons, football pads, and leather pants? Even Dee Snider laughs about his costume.

And consider how seriously Christians take things. Both Styx and Peter Gabriel were condemned in California for having Satanic material on their albums. At question for Styx was the song "Snowblind", a reflection on cocaine addiction that does not paint the drug in a glamorous light. And Peter Gabriel? "Shock the Monkey" did just that, and suddenly the man who recorded "Solsbury Hill" and "Here Comes the Flood" stood accused of Satanism. Or the band Savatage, whose dungeons-and-dragons approach to rock and roll gained them criticism for Satanic imagery. In 1991 they released "Streets", hands-down the most Christian rock and roll album I've ever heard, and an artistic triumph. Sure, Michael W. Smith sold better, and I wouldn't be surprised if DC Talk had a better year, but nobody noticed because it was an artistic triumph in a dead vein of rock and roll. It had nothing to do with its faith and politics; I used to find the album heavily anti-Christian. Its commercial failure came from the fact that everyone was already sick of that brand of rock and roll. But a band who was known to have included the lyric, "We should have listened to what Christ had to say" has taken flak for being Satanic. Or Bob Larson, who must edit the lyrics he reprints in order to have examples to crow about. Who never understood that the kids read the liner notes on albums and, often, have already dismissed the very disputes he seeks to manufacture.

This isn't just about "certain artists". It strikes at the heart of Free Speech. Music cannot be accepted or rejected based solely on Christian and post-Christian values. Speech cannot be curbed merely to meet a faith standard. It is about music in general because the would-be censors speak nothing about the repugnant imagery of a handful of Christian hymns ("Onward Christian Soldiers", "Glory Glory Hallelujah!", &c.) It is, in fact, about determining what qualifies as "music", and thus affects the whole of musical expression. Ever watched someone dance the Charleston? It's technically not a dance. Specifically: some slave owners in the American south forbade dancing among their slaves; it was too pagan and beastly and sexual. But the slaves were smarter than people at the time thought. They invented the Charleston because the religious folk had specific rules about what constituted dancing, and the Charleston breaks none of them. In the modern day, I tip my hat to an associate of mine who reminds that, "Quakers don't dance; they rhythm."

I always look at the rest of Christendom and then I look at the Quakers and wonder what is wrong. The Quakers seem, for the most part, comfortable with themselves. I can't get why others are so insecure as to attempt to bend society into conformity. I must admit that when my political needs encountered the Society of Friends, we were always on the same side of the fight. But seriously: Quakers don't dance. And their answer to that is a lot simpler than the Charleston. That's actually what I mean when I say people take things too seriously. On the one hand is a complex set of rules with enough loopholes to invent the Charleston; this is a sign of overthinking prohibition. To the other is a general prohibition and a very easy way around it. Don't think a Quaker lost in the rhythm doesn't thank the slaves for their contribution. But they generally know their faith is their own and are willing to trust God to deal with the rest; I have great respect for what I see in their behavior.

Of course the drawback here is that Quakers flip basic theology on its ear. George Fox was a dandy, tellyawhat. For myself, its a convenient relationship of respect and trust. Quakers trust God, and I trust them to do so. It's what they choose, but they're not so obsessed with the possibility that they've chosen wrongly that they have to visit their miseries on other people. Unfortunately, they're a fairly unique minority in the Christian world.Maybe you havent tried enough artists, there are many christian bands and albums available.........POD is a great example........also try Five Iron Frenzy, Relient K, Lost Coin, etcI admit I haven't listened closely to the latest flock. But if POD is a great example, then I have to say the market is about what it was when I was 18: the Christian imitations of style generally failed to live up to their genres. King's X, for instance, is one of the greatest bands I've ever had the displeasure of listening to. But I'll tell you, when they hit the nation with their post-Soundgarden slop single in the early 90s, all the Christian hipsters I knew threw away their Petra albums and proclaimed new champions of rock and roll. You know, if they were on the ticket at a show I was going to anyway, I wouldn't walk out on them. But they weren't that great. In fact, they lacked compared to the genre they imitated. But in that case, King's X has good company: Rush's grunge-era project sucked almost as much.thats a whole different issueWhy?[/quote]can you reference that? I hadnt heard that.....at any rate, divorce is not acceptable according to more fundamental christians as well as catholics so are those so called 'christian marriages' actually christian? the census was recently completed here (canada) and it revealed that many people call themselves christians but do not practice religion, therefore they arent actually christian, so all studies should keep that in mind.[/quote]Going back to the same place I got it before, I find the 2001 numbers, more recent than those I remember, show a slightly better trend, and so these I submit with whatever implications:

• Barna Research, August 6, 2001 release (http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=95&Reference=B)
•_Barna Research "Family" page (http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/Home.asp)at any rate, divorce is not acceptable according to more fundamental christians as well as catholics so are those so called 'christian marriages' actually christian?Here, you'll love this: "When Christ was Gay: What many Christians seem to forget" (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html):[font=times]The Religious Right is nearly half-full with people living in continuous adulterous lifestyles, and those who are not remarried fully accept their remarried brothers and sisters without question. They even perform their adulterous marriage ceremonies in their churches. Yet they have the gall to preach from their pulpits or shout through the airwaves that God wants us to stop the world from accepting homosexuals the same way they have been accepted by God.

Jesus warned us not to be like the servant who was forgiven his debt by the grace of his lord but then used the legal system to throw a fellow slave in jail. The Religious Right, however, claim God's grace for their own lifestyle sins but then turn around and give tremendous amounts of time and money to use the legal system against homosexuals.

It is a double standard. It is a mockery. If Christ took their sins to the cross and became an adulterer through propitiation before burying that sin in the ground, then Christ also took the gay person's sin to the cross and became a homosexual before burying that sin in the ground. The Religious Right, and everyone else, should either accept that God's grace covers all of us, including those living in sinful lifestyles, or that none of us are covered. They should either condemn their remarried members or shut up about those among us who are gay.[/font=times]Just a convenient coincidence. I keep that URL tucked away for just such occasions. I love that article. It's funny enough on the one hand, and to the other it seems to be correct.the census was recently completed here (canada) and it revealed that many people call themselves christians but do not practice religion, therefore they arent actually christian, so all studies should keep that in mind.This is a curious problem that is left only to the Christians to resolve. We, the infidels, cannot be of much help here. After the regular reminders of how evil and stupid we are, after being decried as being responsible for bringing God's wrath onto the US on 9/11 ... you know, we're just kind of sick of it. Christians, if their faith and identity through faith is that important to them, must work to re-establish Christianity as something other than the nagging voice in the corner.I WAS taught the theory of evolution as fact!!! so why cant the creation theory be taught as fact as well? in my opinion both should be presented, holes and flaws and all but neither as absolute factWell, for starters because Creationism isn't fact. You can paint any case for Creationism you want, but without a definitive demonstration of the existence of the architect or executor of the Universe--e.g. the Creator--Creationism remains scientifically untestable. From the facts we have available to us, what is called Evolution Theory is the most viable explanation. Our knowledge of it increases daily, and we have a large sample of positive trends suggesting that we are clearly on the right track. Based on the facts, evolution is fact. One of the things you have to realize about a scientific theory is that once postulated, it never stops getting samples for consideration. Evolution Theory is not some wild idea constructed from nothing. It is a framework based on observable data, and the term describes its aspiration to contain the whole of that puzzle. What Evolution Theory is today is not necessarily what it will be tomorrow. But if scientists were on the wrong track, the evidence would have shown them by now.

Creationism is an assertion that has no real meaning. By some poetic licenses, it can be reasonably said that yes, God did create the Universe. But Christians generally don't like to liberalize their Bibles to that degree; it takes the sting out of other asserted realities.

Furthermore, Creationism seeks a dualistic arena. The possibilities are myriad. Even if there is some quirk of natural law we haven't found that will shatter the Evolution Theory to merely a good idea that failed, this is not indication of Creationism. I always wonder what will happen to a Christian when they find God and realize it's nothing like they were taught to expect.as I stated in another thread somewhere, Religion explains they 'why' of the universe, Science explains 'how'....science is great, it allows us to understand how this came about or how that works, but religion tells us why it came about or why it exists, otherwise there's no reason for anythingThat's a mighty big presumption. Religion asserts "why". It does not explain "why".Thats a new one to me! in one of the old testament books there are references to large monstrous creatures that could be described as dinosours along with the humans so why should they say that its not possible for a dinosour and human to have walked near each other?Well, there were big, scary creatures running around the Earth in the days of the human ancestry. They're currently digging mammoth remains off the California coast, documenting the timeline of its extinction and realizing that people did the damage. But the big scary creatures weren't giant lizards with walnut-sized brains. I was very happy a couple of years ago when I saw videotape of a narwhal; I thought the poor buggers were extinct. If there's anything in the sea that looks demonic to me, it's jellyfish; I've never seen a live giant jellyfish eye to eye--we get the smaller varieties around here. But the IMAX version certainly makes them scary.that argument doesnt make sense! it sounds like it came from someone who has no idea what they're talking aboutI know, I know. But that's the point: this is how Christianity is being portrayed by people who claim the faith and seek to champion its cause. These are the kind of faithful I refer to when I write things like: Plenty of literate people get tired of being called sinful degenerates because they read a given book--ever listen to a Christian protesting a book in a public library?once again you have to first determine if they are truly christians (and first you have to define christian)Here is where I agree with you. But I tend to be foolish and take people at their word. Somebody, somewhere, has to trust people generally, or else nobody will. But again I have this strange image of an old Greek man with a lantern (http://www.benbest.com/philo/diogenes.html).Salvation hasnt turned people into prigs, people have turned people into prigs! (assuming that prig is the same as prick).....what bothers me is when people who say they are christians do/say all sorts of things that go against the bible which is SUPPOSED to be their guide to life/God and then justify it by using the bible!While it's true that people have become more priggish over time, we cannot pretend that the paradigms exist independent of the people. In consideration of, say, Max Weber pointing out intrinsic connections between Protestantism and Capitalism, can you tell me how different Christian faith would be without American Christianity? While certain aspects of Protestant asceticism contributed greatly to the development of modern Capitalism, so has Capitalism contributed greatly to the consequent development of people within its scope. Even Americans are not true Capitalists, but when money became more important than life, many Christians went right along on the bandwagon. In a sense, if we mark "WASP" values in the US, many Christians led the charge.

In the end, it is left to Christians to clean up their own house. It is up to the faithful to set right their brethren, to bring them spiritual fulfillment instead of empty declarations. We, the infidels, can certainly recruit the best and brightest among them for intellectual liberty, but some insist on maintaining spiritual fetters. I cannot express the importance of the "image" of Christianity being put forth by the squeakiest wheel. Furthermore, it is inappropriate and distasteful to "grease" them according to the standards of Christian history, but that's the point--the world is moving forward while this ample and vocal bloc literally tries to haul the whole lot down into a heap. As the rest of the world moves toward peace and reconciliation, this substantial bloc of Christian insanity pulls harder toward the divisive abyss.

Thus I hold that the fundamentalist movement is indeed losing ground. They might be getting larger, they are definitely getting louder. But they are also increasingly irrelevant to the situations at hand. However, George W. Bush makes sure to keep them relevant, just in case the country somehow isn't tired of being browbeaten.

There are some Christian organizations that try to understand, but they are few and far between, and involved in fringe issues like harm reduction and alternative political theory. They are, however, outweighed by the self-righteous and blathering.

I understand what you say about the idea of "true Christians", but here is my lantern, here is my search.sorry bout the length!Length? Don't worry about it. Seriously, ask around. Don't worry yourself about the length. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiassa
[B]Presumptuous of you. No, I'm not.

---And, incidentally, Mormons are Christians. Just not your preferred type of Christian, but there's nothing like a good round of exclusionism to start off the post.Do you know any true Christians, period?

*mormons have their own holy book that was created by a man, that makes them a different religion


---Sorry, but I love that adjective: "true".

Would you please define a true Christian, and give me some idea of how many there are? Because I've got this image in my head of an old Greek man with a lantern. Isn't that beside the point?Where to start?

*a true christian is one who has accepted Christ into his/her life, who tries his/her very best to listen to and do what God is telling them to do and who looks always to the scriptures for guidence and as true


•_You know, if you know me well enough, you'll hear me complaining about various books. It's part of a human being's birthright to have an opinion. But I won't ever say that something shouldn't be printed. I'll even go so far as to admit that the public is best off without some information, but I won't stop people from printing it or reading it. And if something ever horrifies me so greatly as to demand its expungement from the human experience, I would hope to have better reasons than my own opinion of it.

*i am the same almost......I dont think porn should be available but other than that I would never complain about a book being printed

• You know, I've never witnessed a book burning put on by atheists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, pagans, &c. I probably missed a couple of torchings of The Satanic Verses, but Rushdie survives a death sentence and I'm happy enough about that. But to my common experience, only Nazis, Stalinists, and Christians burn books regularly.

*never seen/heard of a book burning, sorry

• I despise the American economic priorities. However, this time they clearly explain part of what you're complaining about. If "Christian" books sold better than they do in general bookstores, the bookstores would order more of them. Consider Bob Larson's Dead Air, Frank Peretti's mysteries, and those insane books about the coming apocalypse whose author and titles I thankfully cannot remember? Of those last, I see them at every bookstore I go to except for the mystics. I see them at Costco, Fred Meyer, Wal-Mart ... just about everywhere I go. Add to that the general Christian media presence: Satanists do not get their own section at Dalton's or Waldenbooks. You can certainly make an argument that these books shouldn't be sequestered as they are, but if they're not, they don't sell at all. If the books sold better, they would integrate, just as those that do have in the past and will continue to in the future. As it is, the segregation of certain Christian volumes is a smart business move because customers for those books like having them gathered together, and don't seem to want to have to pick through shelves lined with the latest Martin Greenburg anthology of erotic horror fiction. In addition, I might point out that my child's maternal grandfather sent us a satellite dish designed to receive only Three Angels Broadcasting Network, one of at least three nationwide and international US-based Christian television networks. Televangelism is a multibillion-dollar industry in this country. Has it occurred to anyone why it is ironic that The Simpsons has been pointed out to be one of the most "Christianized" television shows on the air? Eyes shut, hands clamped over their ears, shouting ceaselessly, it's no wonder why some Christians feel so isolated.Those "certain artists" (A) have every right to be as they are, and (B) have those rights for the same reason you are allowed to find them sick and depraved.

*i'm glad the christians here are not like the ones you've evidently met!! we use the media in many youth groups to show messages (everything from Veggie Tales to the Matrix), most watch/read/listen to things from 'secular' areas/artists, and mostly listen to see what the message is in it........we do not try to close ourselves off fromt the rest of the world b/c Jesus says that we're supposed to go out INTO the world and make disciples


---Think about this: Nobody's saying you can't be appalled. But what people are saying is that you can't censor them. These Christians who have so stained the reputation of their faith essentially demand that their right to free speech is only secured when others are disallowed the same right.

*that is sad and i agree that you cannot censor people as much as you might like to


---This isn't just about "certain artists". It strikes at the heart of Free Speech. Music cannot be accepted or rejected based solely on Christian and post-Christian values. Speech cannot be curbed merely to meet a faith standard. It is about music in general because the would-be censors speak nothing about the repugnant imagery of a handful of Christian hymns ("Onward Christian Soldiers", "Glory Glory Hallelujah!", &c.) It is, in fact, about determining what qualifies as "music", and thus affects the whole of musical expression.

*I agree, its up to each individual to decide what they will or will not listen to, but no one can force people to listen to anyone elses choice

---I always look at the rest of Christendom and then I look at the Quakers and wonder what is wrong. The Quakers seem, for the most part, comfortable with themselves. I can't get why others are so insecure as to attempt to bend society into conformity.

*Our church here is quite secure in itself..........however we do try to get our message out there, not because we're insecure about it, but because we believe that if we dont then people are gonna end up in Hell cause no one would tell them about Christ.....we do know that not everyone is going to believe us or accept Christ but we still try

---But seriously: Quakers don't dance. And their answer to that is a lot simpler than the Charleston. That's actually what I mean when I say people take things too seriously. On the one hand is a complex set of rules with enough loopholes to invent the Charleston; this is a sign of overthinking prohibition. To the other is a general prohibition and a very easy way around it. Don't think a Quaker lost in the rhythm doesn't thank the slaves for their contribution. But they generally know their faith is their own and are willing to trust God to deal with the rest; I have great respect for what I see in their behavior.

*that is what I dream of for christians as a whole

I admit I haven't listened closely to the latest flock. But if POD is a great example, then I have to say the market is about what it was when I was 18: the Christian imitations of style generally failed to live up to their genres.

*what I meant by POD being a great example was only that they are a christian band in main-stream music (I personally dislike that music but thats not important)

----Going back to the same place I got it before, I find the 2001 numbers, more recent than those I remember, show a slightly better trend, and so these I submit with whatever implications:

• Barna Research, August 6, 2001 release (http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=95&Reference=B)
•_Barna Research "Family" page (http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/Home.asp)

*thank you, those were indeed interesting......one question that came to mind as I read those were when did they get divorced or live in common law?? was it before or after they became christians..........I dunno

Here, you'll love this: "When Christ was Gay: What many Christians seem to forget" (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html):[font=times][/font=times]

*I must admit the title didnt make any sense till almost the end but I think I get the point of the article.......and I agree with it (MOSTLY).....we cannot condem one lifestyle and not the other......I'm still trying to figure out where I stand on homosexuality exacly so thus far I just dont talk about it except to ask questions......however, I know exactly how I feel about divorce, its not something that God approves of and the only way a divorce is allowable is if there is abuse involved..........and remarriage is only acceptable if the first partner died. Thats my opinion anyway

---After the regular reminders of how evil and stupid we are, after being decried as being responsible for bringing God's wrath onto the US on 9/11 ... you know, we're just kind of sick of it.

*at youth group last weekend we talked about how to approach christians and non christians about sin and we came to the conclusion that Jesus told christians flat out 'what you're doing is wrong, stop it' and non-christians were approached in more of a 'hey, is that really in your best interest?' way......the basic idea was that we cannot hold non-christians to standards that they havent signed up for......i'm sorry that you are being held to our standards

Well, for starters because Creationism isn't fact. You can paint any case for Creationism you want, but without a definitive demonstration of the existence of the architect or executor of the Universe--e.g. the Creator--Creationism remains scientifically untestable. From the facts we have available to us, what is called Evolution Theory is the most viable explanation. Our knowledge of it increases daily, and we have a large sample of positive trends suggesting that we are clearly on the right track. Based on the facts, evolution is fact. One of the things you have to realize about a scientific theory is that once postulated, it never stops getting samples for consideration. Evolution Theory is not some wild idea constructed from nothing. It is a framework based on observable data, and the term describes its aspiration to contain the whole of that puzzle. What Evolution Theory is today is not necessarily what it will be tomorrow. But if scientists were on the wrong track, the evidence would have shown them by now.

*I didnt say creationism was fact and I dont believe that evolution is either (I've seen enough loopholes in it to make me doubt it could ever be proven true), my point was that if evolution is taught as fact then the other major theories should be too........I would like to see it where non were taught as fact

---I always wonder what will happen to a Christian when they find God and realize it's nothing like they were taught to expect.That's a mighty big presumption.

*I wonder that too.......I know that when I meet God He will not be exactly what I thought He was b/c as an imperfect human I cannot full grasp a perfect being

--- If there's anything in the sea that looks demonic to me, it's jellyfish; I've never seen a live giant jellyfish eye to eye--we get the smaller varieties around here. But the IMAX version certainly makes them scary.I know, I know.

*they are indeed scary creatures! lol

---But that's the point: this is how Christianity is being portrayed by people who claim the faith and seek to champion its cause. These are the kind of faithful I refer to when I write things like: Plenty of literate people get tired of being called sinful degenerates because they read a given book--ever listen to a Christian protesting a book in a public library?Here is where I agree with you. But I tend to be foolish and take people at their word. Somebody, somewhere, has to trust people generally, or else nobody will. But again I have this strange image of an old Greek man with a lantern (http://www.benbest.com/philo/diogenes.html).

*thats something that the churches in our city are trying to change, hopefully this will spread and we will be able to give a better impression of christians!


---There are some Christian organizations that try to understand, but they are few and far between, and involved in fringe issues like harm reduction and alternative political theory. They are, however, outweighed by the self-righteous and blathering.

*that is a problem and something the church needs to (and is in some areas) trying to address


---I understand what you say about the idea of "true Christians", but here is my lantern, here is my search.

i'm sorry that I cannot give a better definition of a true christian right now, purhaps others can help me out (DoJ, truthseeker, snow, etc)

----Length? Don't worry about it. Seriously, ask around. Don't worry yourself about the length. ;)

*lol ok then!

Thanx for your respectfulness!

mormons have their own holy book that was created by a man, that makes them a different religion I might inquire, then, your opinion of Protestants?a true christian is one who has accepted Christ into his/her life, who tries his/her very best to listen to and do what God is telling them to do and who looks always to the scriptures for guidence and as true Honestly, I won't argue with that definition. However, it presents a diversity problem. It's a very liberal definition that can be applied by a diverse range of people both good and not so good to their interpretations of faith. While I hate the idea of clubbing you with the Inquisitions, please understand that those torturers and judges and executioners could very well plead their case for proper faith by your definition.never seen/heard of a book burning, sorry - "Purging Flame" (ABC News) (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/book_burning010326.html)
- Church plans Harry Potter book burning (Ananova) (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_482468.html?menu=news.quirkies.showbizq)

These are a couple from the last few years. I did see something in Google about a book-burning in a Muslim backwater, but that seemed beside the point.*i'm glad the christians here are not like the ones you've evidently met!! we use the media in many youth groups to show messages (everything from Veggie Tales to the Matrix), most watch/read/listen to things from 'secular' areas/artists, and mostly listen to see what the message is in it........we do not try to close ourselves off fromt the rest of the world b/c Jesus says that we're supposed to go out INTO the world and make disciples Well, good for them. Really. But I'm puzzled at what that has to do with anything. Do you refer to a group of people who consider themselves fundamentalists? Presuming yes, for sake of relevance to the topic, oh ... heck. No comment. I'll get to it when we get around to it later: *that is sad and i agree that you cannot censor people as much as you might like to

*I agree, its up to each individual to decide what they will or will not listen to, but no one can force people to listen to anyone elses choice Cool--I'm right there with you. But the point of our departure, it seems concerns the vast number of your fellow Christians who don't look at it that way. Believe me, I'm thrilled at your perspective. But, as with above ... never mind, not now, I see we get a chance to deal with that shortly.*Our church here is quite secure in itself.... This presents an opportunity to offer an unsolicited bit of strategy advice: So long as there exists such a voice of fundamentalist pettiness about American Christianity at least, it will be difficult for more legitimate and reconciled forms of Christianity to minister to the people. Please understand, when we the infidels combine our hopes to stop the press of fundamentalist Christian politics, we are characterized as bigots against Christians. In short, we cannot fix what is wrong with the presentation of Christianity. Do not leave your brothers and sisters in Christ astray on the roads they travel. Whatsoever you do not do for the least of His brethren--did you leave the sheep astray? And, as it works out, such a course will open more roads to evangelize to the infidels with integrity and influence.*that is what I dream of for christians as a whole Christians would find themselves less tangled in social discord if they could pull that one off.*what I meant by POD being a great example was only that they are a christian band in main-stream music (I personally dislike that music but thats not important) Fair enough. What I'm after is that no matter how popular they are, nothing can make them a good band.*I must admit the title didnt make any sense till almost the end but I think I get the point of the article... Well, thank you for pushing through. The title usually snags most people.the basic idea was that we cannot hold non-christians to standards that they havent signed up for......i'm sorry that you are being held to our standards Eh, I'm a human being. The hard part is that it reduces the potential of an idea like Christianity to be effectively good. Sure I think the theology's off, but that shouldn't matter. Where it matters is where social cooperation collapses and common cause gets put aside for the prestige of divisions. I, and many others, shall endure, for there are greater hardships to suffer than some annoying people taxing the electoral and judicial systems. But my broader point throughout this topic is more related to my assertion that fundamentalist influence is declining and offering some reasons why. The first thing is to make clear that these processes occur, that these events happen. The next thing to do is to figure out what they mean. And then we might have some reasonable idea of what to do about them.

For instance, we can agree that many people bearing the marque of Christianity behave in manners detrimental to their community, their family, in other words countervalent to their faith. We can also, I think, agree that Christians are humans too, and thus bound to spend a certain amount of time countervailing their own faith. Where people run up against problems where fundamentalist Christianity is involved is that the countervailing seems cyclical and it sometimes seems as if history is good enough for nobody, and everyone must figure out what's wrong with this or that behavior for their own selves. Now, I won't deny a body its proper right of self-determination, but it ain't faith ....*I didnt say creationism was fact and I dont believe that evolution is either (I've seen enough loopholes in it to make me doubt it could ever be proven true), my point was that if evolution is taught as fact then the other major theories should be too........I would like to see it where non were taught as factI would love it if anybody could recite to me the standing version of the theory of evolution. People tend to regard it as static like a creationist assertion. But evolution is a dynamic theory, constantly growing and refining Science is an ongoing process: what the evidence most strongly suggests becomes the working theory. And there are enough facts in place around what we consider the theory of evolution as to secure its general place; what the detail resolves to be will be what the detail resolves to be. But if the evolution was not a viable scientific device, the evidence would clearly have shown it by now. One can only go so far at present when saying, "This is how it is," but it's not like you're discovering a condition whereby 2+2 does not equal 4.
*I wonder that too.......I know that when I meet God He will not be exactly what I thought He was b/c as an imperfect human I cannot full grasp a perfect being I was thinking more along the lines of what happens if God is a mathematical equation?
*thats something that the churches in our city are trying to change, hopefully this will spread and we will be able to give a better impression of christians! I hate to be picky, but can you give us more "true" Christians? Or not, as some would prefer. But I would like to see how they function in the real world; "true" Christians are mere postulations insofar as I can tell.

I thank you, as well, for your own kindness. Please understand, though, that in terms of the topic, you don't sound too fundie. If the fundamentalist echelon operated more according to your faith expressions, they probably wouldn't concern people enough to have a discussion like we're having. We can never stamp out the undereducated, volatile interpretations of faith, but over time we might be able to make them so irrelevant to the situation that progress becomes that much more possible for the rest of humanity.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Turduckin
I Timothy 4:6 If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.

I interpret 'the brothers' in this instance to mean fellow Christians. Everything through 1 Timothy 5 indicates that the writer is addressing believers. If that is all you mean then more power to you. But if you are talking about speaking out against non-believers, then please point me to the biblical justification for this action. To my knowledge, the only people that Jesus spoke out against directly were fellow Jews who were hypocrites. Please instruct me if I am wrong.


Hello Turduckin ~

Yes, you're right on here. The Apostle Paul had written these words to Timothy as an exhortation to continue his work in discipling the believers of Ephesus. And yes, I did write the post you're referring to as a reminder to fellow Christians that we're to be aware of what's going on around us in regard to those whom have "left the faith" and "who follow the teachings of hypocritical liars," yet all the while claim to be Christians.

If there is a message that I wish to share with any non-believers; it's that true-Christians will indeed do what's asked in 1 Timothy 4:6 (as you had quoted above) in order to hold accountable to the Bible anyone claiming or professing to be Christian. Knowing this, and as you've seen what is asked of me (or any Christian) in 1 Timothy 4:6, I can't really be too concerned if I happen to 'offend' someone along the way in doing so. Also, know that it would never be my intention to purposely be offensive, but at times when someone hears something they dont want to hear, it happens. I'll tell you that I personally welcome any true-Christian to discipline me (using applicable Scripture to do so) when I at times step-out of line with what's Biblically mandated, and believe me it has happened. I'll tell you, it can be a humbling experience and it wouldn't be too hard to let myself feel offended, but at the same time I know it's done out of love and concern for me by a "true" brother or sister in Christ.

Unfortunately, many non-believers don't see any virtue in this and would rather label the mandate of 1 Timothy 4:6 as being egotistical or self-righteous behavior. They continue to point out the perceived problems within Christianity, yet condemn those Christians who inact on Biblical Scripture that has been given us to police the professing Christian's actions. This begs to question and I often wonder as to whether or not non-believers in this world truly do want to see Christians behave as Christians should.

Lastly, as for speaking out against non-believers, I can say that it is the responsibility of any true Christian to 'show' someone (usually being a friend, relative or associate of some type) how they might be involved in sinfully destructuve behavior. Now, when I say "show someone" I dont mean in a condemning or judging manner. I do mean to approach this person in a spirit of care and compassion for their well-being. I have done just this (often) and have experienced any and all imaginable responses. The one constant has been that this person ALWAYS knew that my intentions were good and NEVER held against me my attempts to help them recognize (and sometimes deal with) their sin. More often than not I've been thanked for doing so, and in fact, one woman in particular (my wife) was so thankful....that she married me! (ha, but true story).

I'll close by saying that when someone accepts Jesus as Lord and truly lives their life by the examples and teachings He provides (not just learns of them)...life is an awesome, fulfilling and rewarding experience. I honestly can say that I fear nothing, am in want of nothing (yet have little materialy), am never lonely, and everyday I awake provides yet another chance for me to do something 'in His name and for His glory'.

~ Disciple of Jesus

I personally welcome any true-Christian to discipline me Who has the right to decied what a "true" christian is. Based on little more then your interpretation of the bible. Some one will read the same page and get something different.

I'll tell you, it can be a humbling experience and it wouldn't be too hard to let myself feel offended, but at the same time I know it's done out of love and concern for me by a "true" brother or sister in Christ. Enough said.

Unfortunately, many non-believers don't see any virtue in this and would rather label the mandate of 1 Timothy 4:6 as being egotistical or self-righteous behavior. They continue to point out the perceived problems within Christianity, yet condemn those Christians who inact on Biblical Scripture that has been given us to police the professing Christian's actions. This begs to question and I often wonder as to whether or not non-believers in this world truly do want to see Christians behave as Christians should. We are all fools unless we are god. Unless we had the wisdom of God then we are fools. How can you claim you know? That is hypocracy. Are you saying you are Jesus? I am sure he knows the true meaning..Do you?

Lastly, as for speaking out against non-believers, I can say that it is the responsibility of any true Christian to 'show' someone (usually being a friend, relative or associate of some type) how they might be involved in sinfully destructuve behavior. It there was a passage that said it wasn't sinful to rape black women would you do it? Or if it was ok to kill muslims? Or if the book told you to kill muslims. Once again would you do it?

The one constant has been that this person ALWAYS knew that my intentions were good and NEVER held against me my attempts to help them recognize (and sometimes deal with) their sin. Do you know what sin is?

I'll close by saying that when someone accepts Jesus as Lord and truly lives their life by the examples and teachings He provides (not just learns of them)...life is an awesome, fulfilling and rewarding experience. I honestly can say that I fear nothing, am in want of nothing (yet have little materialy), am never lonely, and everyday I awake provides yet another chance for me to do something 'in His name and for His glory'. There is a fine line between living in reality being in contentment and living in a delusions of contentment. Do you know for certain which is true. Only god can know for sure.

Originally posted by Disciple of Jesus
Hello Turduckin ~

Lastly, as for speaking out against non-believers, I can say that it is the responsibility of any true Christian to 'show' someone (usually being a friend, relative or associate of some type) how they might be involved in sinfully destructuve behavior

~ Disciple of Jesus

Hi D. O. J.

I'm looking for the biblical justification this claim of responsibility to speak out.

Why do you not address anything I say?

Tiassa,

You bitch an awful lot about free speech and hypocritical Christians who burn books. In America, shouldn't people be allowed to burn books, or flags or crosses? Or is free speech delimited solely by your opinion of what does and does not qualify? Perhaps this is a different thread, but I'm responding to your rant in this thread.

Why Do you not Address anything I say?

Originally posted by Empty Dragon
Why do you not address anything I say? I don't know about D.O.J, but I'm still trying to formulate a response to your reply about bad fruit from bad trees. The problem is 'literary content'. The parable was trying to make a point, and the sentences that preceded and followed what I quote helped to make the point. A person with a bad heart may occasionally do a good thing, but the motivation and intent end up polluting the act somewhere down the road. Bad things can have good consequences, but the things themselves are still bad. Good things from bad people are often like trojan horses. Yeah, they're good (or seem so) at first, but ususally end up being more like bait set in a trap.

Originally posted by Turduckin
Hi D. O. J.

I'm looking for the biblical justification this claim of responsibility to speak out.

Hello Turduckin ~

As I had previously stated, to "speak-out" against sin (according to what is described as being sinful in the Bible), and the encouraging of repentance of recognized sin in non-believers, is and has been Biblically mandated for the followers of Jesus Christ, otherwise known as Disciples (teachers).

In Galatians 2:7, the Apostle Paul states; "On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the Gospel (or good news) to the Gentiles (Greeks; obvious non-believers), just as Peter had been to the Jews."

This is just one example that came to mind, but there are numerous others depicting the Disciples of Jesus Christ preaching to non-believers. As modern-day Disciples of Jesus, Christians are to follow the example given us by past Disciples by preaching the Gospel and rebuking sin. Obviously, preaching and rebuking (the recognizing and calling for repentance of sin) is part of what Disciples did then, and so it continues to be our calling.

I hope this clarify's it for you, if not I will search for and share more applicable Scripture.

~ Disciple of Jesus

D.O.J ~
I'm sorry, but I don't see the connection between teaching the gospel and speaking out against sin. Maybe I'm making too fine a point, but I don't think so. I think Tiassa is right on the mark when she said:Originally posted by Tiassa
To judge by evangelism, salvation is the first and foremost reason to convert. Let me, then, get this straight: You convert in order to save your ass, and God doesn't know you're greedy? There are many other things that can be said to the 'Gentiles', besides "You are a sinner, but the good news is that Jesus died for you."

I was very impressed by the exchange between New Life and Tiassa. What I heard was mutual respect and a desire for a productive relationship. If we are all created in God's image, then this is how I expect people to act, whether they believe in God or not.

Originally posted by Empty Dragon
Who has the right to decied what a "true" christian is. Based on little more then your interpretation of the bible. Some one will read the same page and get something different.

Enough said.

~ My Reply: Christians are to accept, abide by and follow the examples, teachings and mandates of Jesus Christ and His Disciples as outlined in the Bible. To be a Christian is to be a follower of Jesus Christ. In looking at His example and what He taught, and with the power of the God's (teaching and counseling) Holy Spirit that indwells within the Bible believing and practicing Christian, we can and are told to examine whether or not someone is truly a follower of Jesus Christ. If it is evident the person is not in compliance (based on aligning that persons exhibited words, beliefs and actions with Scripture), his or her truthfulness in claiming Jesus as Lord should be questioned. ~

We are all fools unless we are god. Unless we had the wisdom of God then we are fools. How can you claim you know? That is hypocracy. Are you saying you are Jesus? I am sure he knows the true meaning..Do you?

~ My Reply: See John 14:15-27. This is how the Christian knows.

It there was a passage that said it wasn't sinful to rape black women would you do it? Or if it was ok to kill muslims? Or if the book told you to kill muslims. Once again would you do it?

~ My Reply: Very hypothetical question; especially since Jesus did not promote sin. These would never be asked nor allowed of me. ~

Do you know what sin is?

~ My Reply: YES. Once again, see John 14:15-27 & also John 8:42-47.

There is a fine line between living in reality being in contentment and living in a delusions of contentment. Do you know for certain which is true. Only god can know for sure.

~ My Reply: Only those whom know God (through the Lordship of His Son Jesus Christ) do indeed know true, fulfilling contentment.

For His Glory -

~ Disciple of Jesus

What I heard was mutual respect and a desire for a productive relationship. This is how I expect people to act, whether they believe in God or not. Turduckin you've got it man!!"Heck Yeah"!!!!:D :D :D :D


It there was a passage that said it wasn't sinful to rape black women would you do it? Or if it was ok to kill muslims? Or if the book told you to kill muslims. Once again would you do it?
Whether Jesus would promote that is obious but would you follow if it was written in the bible. That book has been in the hands of man for a long time.

~ My Reply: See John 14:15-27. This is how the Christian knows. Explain?

~ My Reply: YES. Once again, see John 14:15-27 & also John 8:42-47. Once Again explain.

Interpretations of the bible are completly subjective to the reader. One might get this thing, one might get that thing. To think that your interpreation is alwasy correct is idotic.

A person with a bad heart may occasionally do a good thing, but the motivation and intent end up polluting the act somewhere down the road. Bad things can have good consequences, but the things themselves are still bad. Good things from bad people are often like trojan horses. Yeah, they're good (or seem so) at first, but ususally end up being more like bait set in a trap.

That does make sense to a degree. Though my opinion my differes slightly it is not a big deal. I understand your point.

TurduckinYou bitch an awful lot about free speech and hypocritical Christians who burn books. In America, shouldn't people be allowed to burn books, or flags or crosses? Of course they should. I submit that the issue is not about the act of protest in and of itself, but rather the implications. Consider, please, a simple comparison:

- Flag burning: The burning of a nation's flag is a harsh protest against the actions of its people or their government. In the Islamic world, the burning of the American flag is more common than it is in the US, but in this country, it is the last bastion of civil condemnation--it is a step short of violence. As a pacifist, it becomes the ultimate demonstration short of standing the line under fire from police or, heaven forbid, daring an invading army to plow through a million civilians. What amuses me is that any Flag Burning Amendment must include the language that The First Amendment is hereby amended as follows. In the American religion of patriotism, this is tantamount to amending the Bible in Christianity.

- Cross burning: The primary problem with cross burning comes generally when someone trespasses on private property in order to commit their demonstration there. Cross-burning has been used as a threat for so long in this country that people generally don't like it at all. But I'm sure that if I hit the heavy metal circuit devotedly enough, I can within the space of a year catch one or two shows at which crosses are burned. Admittedly, the presence of the KKK confuses the debate, but people ceased being willing to think reasonably about the KKK a long time ago, and with good reason. When the KKK lights up a cross on George Dubya's lawn, I think the public will look less angrily upon cross burning.

- Book burning: What is ironic about book burning is that it is generally a protest against the publication or permission of a book. The protest, in the US, at least, amounts to asserting that the First Amendment is only available to some--those of like mind to the burners. It is similar to a PTA protest that occurred in the Salem-Keizer, Oregon school district when I lived a state south of here. A Christian woman demanded the removal of a book--Robert McCammon's Demon Walk from the school library because it violated her rights. Now, the argument was tenuous to begin with, but essentially went like this: Even though McCammon did not praise Satan, he presented a character named Demon who was not evil, a condition which runs counter to Christian tradition. Thus, her First Amendment rights were violated by a government endorsement of anti-christian ideas. Her right to free speech, to be represented by a public institution, could only be respected by the removal of the book and the cancellation of that same right for the author. It was a paradoxical notion: "I have my rights only when others do not have theirs."

I'm led to believe the following issue might be at play:

- What you seem to be objecting to: That people should not be allowed to burn books, crosses, &c.
- What I am actually saying: That an inherently problematic condition needs to be considered--Is the Christian's (in this case) First Amendment right or idea of free speech impinged by the existence of the same rights in others?

And what makes it important to the larger issue is the seemingly paradoxical device at play. It recurs as a pattern in fundamentalist engagement with the political method: We are only equal if Christians are better.

And this is why the fundamentalists are losing ground. More of them can yell it louder, but people are officially getting sick of putting up with it. People are generally smart enough to not forcibly silence them, but after a while, if they can offer no new ideas, it should suffice to note their objections for the record and get along with more important things than deciding whose equality is greater or lesser than the next guy's.Or is free speech delimited solely by your opinion of what does and does not qualify? It has nothing to do with that; I'm almost disappointed in your suggestion. Rather, it's just that I can call a spade a crow, a buck a jigaboo, and this fundamentalist interpretation of equality paradoxical.

It is, specifically, about the problems inherent in demanding respect for one's own rights through the suspension of those rights in others.

Beyond that, such a point is only important to the topic because of other expressed positions. To be honest, I'm surprised at how much play the point is getting.

Consider: Twisted Sister's Under the Blade Lp was banned for sale in the United States for several years. (Of the two copies I've owned over time, one was an Italian import complete with a warning that it can't be sold in the US ... heh.) Now, the best I can explain it to you is that I can't figure out why this album was banned. Compared to Eminem, this album is a Sunday School primer. Nearest I can tell you is to find the nearest metalhead to you who still listens to Twisted Sister and ask him to play the album for you in its entirety. And the whole time, think, "This album was banned." And why? For offending the sensibilities of conservative, Christian Americans. I mean, Twisted Sister was subpoenaed by the US Senate! At stake were common American, Christian-derived "values". My favorite part of the story, however, is that Twisted Sister never let anyone forget what happened. Their albums stayed scary. Well, except for that last one. But they kept shooting back the whole time. And yes, they found themselves in that odd moment of realizing that the only way to accommodate the rights of others was to forfeit their own. And really, would you give up your right to free speech just so someone who condemns you can feel secure in theirs?

Any number of things can characterize it well. Go read through the old Bob Larson tantrums about rock and roll, compare his notes on lyrics with the actual songs (Dio's "All the Fools Sailed Away" is a great example) and wonder why he strives to be so dishonest. Realize that he doesn't know the songs he's complaining about, and wonder why he's complaining. Why are books like Are You There God, Its Me Margaret? (Judy Blume), Bridge to Terabithia (Katherine Paterson), or A Wrinkle in Time (Madeleine L'Engle) objectionable? And what do those criteria matter to the point that they are among the most frequently-challenged books (most frequently demanded to be censored)? How is it that school policies are modified in detrimental manners (e.g. sex ed) in order to accommodate Christian complaints? I once lived in a "clothing optional" town, where special legislation had been written specifically to allow women to go topless at the very least. Now, my question is Why do we have to write special legislation to allow anyone to go topless or naked? Whence comes such a standard of indecency that a woman cannot show her breasts in public?

None of it really makes sense when I stop to examine it. Fundamentalism, perhaps according to its somewhat academic definitions (http://www.itib.org/articles/contending_for_the_faith/contending_for_the_faith_1-1.html) bears some theoretical possibility, I suppose. But none of it explains the public representation of meddling and exploitation. The laws of the US are for everybody. Well, in theory. Poppy Bush didn't like atheists, and Dubya seems to think the laws aren't for Muslims, so .... But I think you understand what I'm after. There is the faith on paper, and then there is the living experience. That living experience is a bizarre idea of reality at present. The poor representation offered by the fundamentalist wing does stain the whole name of Christianity, especially in the US.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by TiassaIt has nothing to do with that; I'm almost disappointed in your suggestion.You have a right to be disappointed. Please accept my apology. I was in a bitchy mood when I typed that whole thing. I've been working 8 on/24 off for a week now and i can't think straight.

Originally posted by tiassa
I might inquire, then, your opinion of Protestants?

*indeed, I am in a protestant church.......the difference is that the protestants didnt take on a whole new book, they kept with the Bible, in fact (most) looking closer to it than the Catholics

Honestly, I won't argue with that definition. However, it presents a diversity problem. It's a very liberal definition that can be applied by a diverse range of people both good and not so good to their interpretations of faith. While I hate the idea of clubbing you with the Inquisitions, please understand that those torturers and judges and executioners could very well plead their case for proper faith by your definition.-


*I understand and I'm not saying we should repeat the Inquisitions (in fact I'm quite against that), I just think we should be looking closer at our brothers and sisters actions.........and I do need a better definition, i'm just not sure what it is right now!


Well, good for them. Really. But I'm puzzled at what that has to do with anything. Do you refer to a group of people who consider themselves fundamentalists? Presuming yes, for sake of relevance to the topic, oh ... heck. No comment. I'll get to it when we get around to it later:

*it was meant to show that most are open to the 'outside world' in response to your comment about plugging ears and yelling at the top of the lungs


This presents an opportunity to offer an unsolicited bit of strategy advice: So long as there exists such a voice of fundamentalist pettiness about American Christianity at least, it will be difficult for more legitimate and reconciled forms of Christianity to minister to the people. Please understand, when we the infidels combine our hopes to stop the press of fundamentalist Christian politics, we are characterized as bigots against Christians. In short, we cannot fix what is wrong with the presentation of Christianity. Do not leave your brothers and sisters in Christ astray on the roads they travel. Whatsoever you do not do for the least of His brethren--did you leave the sheep astray? And, as it works out, such a course will open more roads to evangelize to the infidels with integrity and influence.

*thank you for that bit of advice......I suppose the answer is to find the fundies and make them understand what they're doing.....but thats not likely to happen!

Fair enough. What I'm after is that no matter how popular they are, nothing can make them a good band.

*I'm really not sure exactly why you say this (I think I missed the key further back in the discussion)

Eh, I'm a human being. The hard part is that it reduces the potential of an idea like Christianity to be effectively good. Sure I think the theology's off, but that shouldn't matter. Where it matters is where social cooperation collapses and common cause gets put aside for the prestige of divisions. I, and many others, shall endure, for there are greater hardships to suffer than some annoying people taxing the electoral and judicial systems. But my broader point throughout this topic is more related to my assertion that fundamentalist influence is declining and offering some reasons why. The first thing is to make clear that these processes occur, that these events happen. The next thing to do is to figure out what they mean. And then we might have some reasonable idea of what to do about them.

*agreed

For instance, we can agree that many people bearing the marque of Christianity behave in manners detrimental to their community, their family, in other words countervalent to their faith. We can also, I think, agree that Christians are humans too, and thus bound to spend a certain amount of time countervailing their own faith. Where people run up against problems where fundamentalist Christianity is involved is that the countervailing seems cyclical and it sometimes seems as if history is good enough for nobody, and everyone must figure out what's wrong with this or that behavior for their own selves. Now, I won't deny a body its proper right of self-determination, but it ain't faith ....

*I agree to all of this.......tho I think some of it (history) extends to many other groups as well

I would love it if anybody could recite to me the standing version of the theory of evolution. People tend to regard it as static like a creationist assertion. But evolution is a dynamic theory, constantly growing and refining Science is an ongoing process: what the evidence most strongly suggests becomes the working theory. And there are enough facts in place around what we consider the theory of evolution as to secure its general place; what the detail resolves to be will be what the detail resolves to be. But if the evolution was not a viable scientific device, the evidence would clearly have shown it by now. One can only go so far at present when saying, "This is how it is," but it's not like you're discovering a condition whereby 2+2 does not equal 4.

*yeah what is the standing theory?

I was thinking more along the lines of what happens if God is a mathematical equation?I hate to be picky, but can you give us more "true" Christians? Or not, as some would prefer. But I would like to see how they function in the real world; "true" Christians are mere postulations insofar as I can tell.

*what do you mean by 'give us more true christians'??


I thank you, as well, for your own kindness. Please understand, though, that in terms of the topic, you don't sound too fundie. If the fundamentalist echelon operated more according to your faith expressions, they probably wouldn't concern people enough to have a discussion like we're having. We can never stamp out the undereducated, volatile interpretations of faith, but over time we might be able to make them so irrelevant to the situation that progress becomes that much more possible for the rest of humanity.

*thank you, agreed

Tiassa ~
Separation of church and state in action (http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20021014-79782056.htm) :(

Here is a little dittie that cropped up near my home town recently. The county supervisors have an invocation before each meeting, and select a religious leader from a list comprised solely of Judeo-Christian clergy. A Wiccan Priestess (and Unitarian) asked for the right to be added to the list and lead an invocation, and was denied because Wicca "is neo-pagan and invokes polytheistic deities" - thus making a mockery of freedom of religion in the state that claims historical pride for just that issue. Your worried about the 'implications' behind burning books. I think the ramifications here are far more profound.

Turduckin

They are, indeed, ramifications more profound. Ordinarily, I would use this issue as my springboard into a long rant about This is why you can't have prayer in public institutions, but I think that point is really part of a different debate.

It would seem redundant, as well, to spend a thousand words recounting the ways in which this further tarnishes the public perception of the Christian paradigm.

The ironic thing is that it provides a response to an issue I've mulled for a couple of years. We have a newspaper up here called The New Times (http://www.newtimes.org/issue/0302/index.html), which seems to be separate from other journals of the same name. It is, essentially, a New Age newspaper prone to rather silly articles. But some time ago they ran a story about the lack of civic participation among Wiccans and other pagans, as if it was good enough for them to hold private faith and, because of an anti-evangelical stance, never act on that faith. Which is why I found it ironic that from the beginning (http://www.au.org/press/pr22001.htm), George W. Bush intended to exclude Wiccans (http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=37) from the faith-based initiative program.

Yet in the face of such incidents as you have noted, Turduckin, and given the stance of the nation's executive, I'm starting to understand part of the cause of the trend noted some time ago by The New Times.

Thank you for pointing this one out to me. Just for the heck of it:

- South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Reb Sutherland, undated letter (http://www.pbn.4mg.com/reb.html): For the record, I do not represent the liberal atheists, and I will never represent them. This country was founded on the basis of the freedom to practice religion, and an atheist has no religion.

- Infidels Org summary of South Carolina church/state situation (http://www.infidels.org/activist/state/sc.shtml): Atheists were finally allowed to hold elected office after a court decision in 1997.

I do think there is a common, underlying ideology, though, between both the book burnings and the church/state issues.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
Just for the heck of it:
South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Reb Sutherland, undated letter (http://www.pbn.4mg.com/reb.html): [/B] Instead, I am a God-fearing woman and say to the Christian men, "You have failed to uphold your Covenant promises to protect your own Family (Genesis 3:16, Ephesians 5:23). You have been negligent of your duty to God and Country. Therefore, God has moved upon the women to rise up in battle to defend their young. I am one of them."

Only one comment. WOA! :eek: