Why Christianity? discussion
Minor topics
>
Why Is It?
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Robert
(new)
Jul 26, 2018 03:33PM
Rod - how many years have we been exchanging ideas? During that time I've given you concrete evidence that I do take Jesus literally. If I didn't, I'd be a wishy-washy Christian, but I'm not - I'm fully onboard. However Jesus was fully human and fully divine, not completely autonomous like Yahweh.. As the Son said, "everything I say and do, the Father taught me. So. he was a baby destined to be the Messiah, but otherwise like any other baby. As a young man, he dazzled at Scriptural learning, but had to learn it nevertheless - the whole package wasn't vouchsafed to him. AT ANY TIME, he had the option to forsake the Father and embrace Satan, but didn't. That's why God said "This is my Son of whom I'm most proud." The upshot of this is: Jesus didn't know everything, not even which parts of the OT were true. If he had the scientific knowledge we have today, he'd reject some of it. His sacrifice is meaningful because he could have taken the easy way out and avoided it. Placing him in the trinity at that time where all co-Gods are omniscient denigrates his sacrifice. I adore him because he had similarities to me - capable of sin, The fact that he could become fleshly and didn't resonates much more with me that your contention that he was present and directly in the loop from the beginning of time.
reply
|
flag
Mod
Rod - sure he did. Why would Satan tempt him if he didn't stand a chance? Why was the Father proud of the Son if everything was preordained? Why was Jesus conflicted over the coming crucifixion if he hadn't any choice in the matter? Are you sure you know Jesus, or are you more concerned with believing every little bit of the Bible although many of the teachings from Jesus supersede the Law and other Hebrew staples?
Mod
Satan wasn't smart enough to fully know what he was doing.
Robert wrote: "you can be too pious by trying to turn the admonitions in NT into mortal sins. Fundamentalists live by this creed.""Fundamentalists" are those that affirm the fundamentals, which is a requirement to actually be a Christian. So no, those who "turn admonitions in the NT into moral sins" are not "Fundamentalists".
If you don't affirm the fundamentals of Christianity then you're not a Christian, if you do then you're a "fundamentalist".
In the West we've come to a point where this term is misapplied and misunderstood (sometimes intentionally, other times unintentionally), due to the Islamic "fundamentalists" which adhere to the fundamentals of the Islamic faith, and the horrific things that inspires.
However, Christianity isn't Islam, and the fundamentals of Christianity aren't the same as the fundamentals of Islam.
So, although there are both those who adhere to the fundamentals of Islam and those who adhere to the fundamentals of Christianity, what those fundamentals are, and how then those adherents will believe and behave in society, are vastly different.
It's "PC" to equate bad actors claiming to be Christians as "fundamentalists", because in our society the desire is to paint Islamic fundamentalists as fringe and crazy wackjobs, as those who don't follow "real" Islam (when that is a lie), as the same as those who twist Christianity into something perverted. People who desperately wish to claim general equity between Islam and Christianity. However, that's simply propaganda, not fact.
In throwing out "Fundamentalists" as a derogatory term regarding Christians you insult, degrade, and reject every single genuine Christian. When you use the term meaning those who pervert and corrupt the tenets of Christianity you're participating in the social marxism of attempting to smear Christianity while white-washing Islam.
And, as I recall, this isn't the first time I've had to correct you on your misunderstanding of the term.
An excellent book: Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't
Mod
Robert, I wouldn't easily say preordained. Maybe: preplanned is a better term. These things still have to play out in real time and emotion. That's the fun part. Jesus hanging out eating fish.
Mod
Alexandra - you criticize me, sometimes rightfully, for not staying on topic, but REALLY how did Islam enter into anything I've ever posted?
Rod - he was conflicted over everything you and I are including every sin - the fact he didn't succumb to ANY temptation adds to his legacy in my book, not detracts. If I fasted for 40 days, I'd sell my soul to Satan for an Outback steak, blooming onion, and a couple of dirty martinis!
Robert wrote: "Alexandra - you criticize me, sometimes rightfully, for not staying on topic, but REALLY how did Islam enter into anything I've ever posted?"I think my post is fairly self-explanatory in that regard ;)
In case you missed it, here's the summation: "In throwing out "Fundamentalists" as a derogatory term regarding Christians you insult, degrade, and reject every single genuine Christian. When you use the term meaning those who pervert and corrupt the tenets of Christianity you're participating in the social marxism of attempting to smear Christianity while white-washing Islam."
Alexandra - Fundamentalists, like all practicing Christians, do not come in a single flavor, they are represented by the same bell-shaped curve evident in almost all representations. Some are to be admired, some vilified, and most ignored. Christianity has withstood rifts in the ranks since it's inception and the current climate is predicted by Biblical prophets. Islam is just a current counterbalance like the Assyrians or Babylonians of yore used to be. If Christianity, with the help of God, fights them off fine, if not, we may enter the end of times which is OK, too. For a scriptural nutcase, you sure adopt the "sky is falling" mentality of a secular liberal pretty easily. Are you sure you know whose camp your in?
Mod
Tempted beyond what we are able. Yum!
Robert wrote: "Alexandra - Fundamentalists, like all practicing Christians, do not come in a single flavor, "I've already explained the meaning of the term Robert, and what you're doing when you misuse it.
If you continue to misuse it, you will do so intentionally and knowingly, and I will continue to correct you.
"For a scriptural nutcase, you sure adopt the "sky is falling" mentality of a secular liberal pretty easily."
Nice ad hominem there, however it is you who has adopted the agenda of the "secular liberal" in your misuse of the term "fundamentalist", as I have already explained.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Alexandra - somehow, you have garnered the notion that if you have "explained" some Biblical matter, that is the end all and be all of the matter. What, in actuality, you have accomplished is to advance the opinion of whatever religious enterprise you deign to represent and nothing more. Because your scientific knowledge seems to be limited to whatever your geologist friend presents, and you can understand, I would consider that woefully limited. I do thank you for your input - some of it has been useful, but much is the stale, standard thought of the masses. I don't dis the masses like secular liberals - many are the sheep of the grand Shepard and will inherit the earth, but neither do I overrelate to the paucity of their thought processes. If you have some original insight, I'd appreciate it, but please refrain from the preachy pulpitty stuff - I can get that anywhere.
Rod - it doesn't take much to tempt me beyond what I'm able. However, much of my sin doesn't take any temptation at all. I'm slothful - well, because I'm lazy and I'm prideful because I'm basically a snob. I just hope admission of these sins to the Master can slip me under St. Peter's nose!
Robert wrote: "somehow, you have garnered the notion that if you have "explained" some Biblical matter, that is the end all and be all of the matter. What, in actuality, you have accomplished is to advance the opinion of whatever religious enterprise you deign to represent and nothing more"Interesting, considering the fact that I've not "explained" any Biblical matter. I've most certain not "deign[ed] to represent" any "religious enterprise", nor to "advance the opinion" of any "religious enterprise" .
It also, interestingly enough, not only has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, but also nothing to do with what I've said in this thread.
But, since you've brought it up, ok:
All I've stated is that I affirm the essential doctrines of Christianity, and that I understand how the Biblical account of Creation is consistent with scientific facts. On the other hand you do not understand how the Biblical account of Creation is consistent with scientific facts and therefore choose, in your ignorance, to hand-wave away the OT. Perfectly within your rights to do so. I did attempt early on to helpfully suggest you study the topic to learn how the Biblical account is consistent with scientific facts. It's something many scientists, and others, understand. But clearly you're not interested. Ok, fair enough.
The rest is simply your assumptions based upon what you want to think and believe about me, based upon nothing but your own agenda and pompous, superior attitude. And due to the fact that I challenge your claims, rather than blindly agree with you, most especially when you hurl out ad hominem attacks. Not to mention, of course, how much you clearly are displeased when I correct your habitual misuse of the term "fundamentalist" that you love to employ as an insult and false accusation against others who deem to challenge you.
"Because your scientific knowledge seems to be limited to whatever your geologist friend presents, and you can understand, I would consider that woefully limited."
Doesn't matter to me one bit what you "consider" of me, however you are most certainly prone to making derogatory and insulting assumptions about people and their degree of knowledge, training, expertise and experience, of whom you know nothing. That's neither wise, nor very scientific or logical, and tends to lead one to serious error. In short, it simply serves to make you appear foolish. If you were wise you'd leave off doing so.
I said what I did regarding a "geologist friend" as an example, of which I could note many, in contrast to your erroneous assertions. Doing so says nothing whatsoever regarding my own knowledge, experience, training, or expertise on that nor any other topic. I choose to remain silent on personal information. Which means, assumptions you choose to make are simply assumptions apart from any evidence whatsoever.
I'll continue to comment when and how I choose. Feel free to put me on Ignore if you don't like it.
Rod wrote: "Everyone grades on a curve - with themselves as the standard."I would not agree that everyone does this, but it certainly is a very common tendency, and I think a very natural human one.
It's good to remember God does not grade on a curve ;)
Alexandra - yes, but isn't it delightfully fun to make assumptions? Speaking of which, on what basis do you "affirm the essential doctrines of Christianity"? Is there some stardust covered tome written in Solomon's gold ink that you refer to? Reiterating for the obtuse amongst us, your affirmation is merely an opinion gleaned from whatever Fundamentalist subset you ascribe to. Depending on the cult, drinking dancing, calling someone a POS (although that is the most apt descriptor), or wearing too short a skirt (mercifully my hemline is passable!) are among the mortal sins illuminated but not Biblically supported. Luckily, Jesus himself suggested that those not in the fold could not understand his parables and thought his teachings in general weren't applicable to their lifestyle. Because I have neither of those problems and consider Christ my Lord and Master, your doctrinal affirmation is, to me, what the British so eloquently term "what rot". Keep up the good work, I'm sure Robert D. enjoys having one of his acolytes on this board.
Robert wrote: "Alexandra - yes, but isn't it delightfully fun to make assumptions? Speaking of which, on what basis do you "affirm the essential doctrines of Christianity"? Is there some stardust covered tome wri..."Thanks for proving my case ;)
Alexandra - I'm glad you choose to remain a cipher. In that capacity, I can set you up as a Straw Man representing whatever hobgoblin that is irritating me that week. Your tepid complaints that I don't know you therefore can't make assumptions just based on your posts amounts to a non-denial denial. If I assert you're a wanton hussy (or the like) and you don't jump up and down, become indignant, and shout "I'm a virgin", then the claim holds some water. Unfortunately, all is fair in love, war and internet chatting!
Ah! Not only do you prove my case, but acknowledge it's entirely intentional. Which was already blatantly obvious :)
Alexandra - I'm not quite sure what "your case" is anymore. Our original discussion involved how literally to take the Old Testament. Your contention, I believe, was that the whole thing was the inerrant word of God with no human aggrandizement. Mine was that indeed the central core is the takeaway message God wanted for Believers, but there is much embellishment at the periphery. Lately, however, you seem to have abandoned that in favor of fussing over what assumptions I make about Alexandra the person. Quite frankly, as you've pointed out, I know nothing about you and wouldn't believe anything you told me anyway. The internet is full of trickery and people assuming false flags to promote an agenda. Though I have no evidence you are anything but a Christian woman with a passion for Scripture, I remain leery of imposters. Thus, I poke fun and have fun while maybe teaching and learning something along the way. Given the limitations of the internet as a tool for serious debate, that's about all I hope to accomplish
