Christianity

[Sakujo]

I saw a number of things here that should be addressed.

1) Tolkien and Lewis were both part of The Inklings, a group dedicated to mystery religions and "occult" things. Their works and their personalities weren't Christian by the "true" definition, but were very "pagan". Lewis even had a Bacchean parade in his Prince Caspian work.

2) The link about "occultism" in the police force is hilarious. You think the police have any clue what they're talking about? Seriously, they're possibly More susceptible to folk psychology and explanations than anything. (The police truly aren't very educated about much beyond their immediate training and experience, from what I've seen with officials I know.)

3) Harry Potter is demonic, etc, etc to Christians, because those are the definitions they've thrown onto it. They're terms of reference, and not so much anything exact at all, but haven't we always known that?

4) Since when can a Christian care about things like civil liberties? If Jesus came back, they'd be begging for the immediacy of their promised totalitarian state where all offenders to God are killed in an instant. (Seriously, it's in the bible. I was a Christian until months ago.)

5) Furthermore, if these "Christians" had taught their children "properly", the kids wouldn't be reading the books in the first place. I was the best little Christian kid you could imagine, staying away from all kinds of sinful and pleasurable things, until my dad went brain-wrecked and screwed up our lives, and I didn't seem to have a reason to care for god anymore. Then, upon reading the bible and going to church for myself I once again became very devout (Of course, I had to use a lot of compartmentalization, rationalization, and just outright ignoring errors while being deceived by the church leaders). But when that happened I was like a Seventh Day Adventist from the Old times, Before the reformation (who believe that the Catholic church was the red dragon, etc).

Point being, if you indoctrinate your prey children correctly, they won't touch it in the first place.

Even so, there doesn't seem to be a solid resolution to the whole "God puts authorities in place, but we can still vote" thing.

And that being the case, it's everyone who loves the current American style of freedom's job to counter-act these poor, self-illusioned people at every crossing.

I could go on about the horrors of Christianity, but that isn't what this topic is about.

6)People who commit crimes labeled as "occult" aren't necessarily mentally ill. They may or may not have mental disorders (different from being mentally ill), but certainly are sick people, even if they have no disorder.


Edit: In sum, the real issue here is parental responsibility, not to ban books, but to be involved in a child's life and teach them what one wants them to know, and then the responsibility is on the child. Banning books from a library of Any sort is retarded, unless it isn't age-appropriate for a certain section (Like a five year old being forced to read a slaughter novel or other such ridiculous idea), because everyone should have equal access where sensible.

[Moondazed]

Words like 'sensible' are the problem... it's subjective.  What's sensible to me may not be to you, so this is one of those arguments that can't be won, unless you take an all or nothing position.

[Sakujo]

Words like 'sensible' are the problem... it's subjective.  What's sensible to me may not be to you, so this is one of those arguments that can't be won, unless you take an all or nothing position.

If we want to get into the philosophy of it, my use of the word sensible indicates something other than what the woman has said, but sensible from a philosophical standpoint would be that which is based upon sound/cogent argumentation, and that which is accepted by the greatest number of studied peers.

Aka, not your common religious fanatic.

[Moondazed]

I understand the concept of 'sensible'... but it's something that is too subjective to be argued with facts... the basis of the topic is moral, so how can there be an actual, truly 'sensible' answer?  I'm not trying to argue with you, just pointing out that it's subjective. 

Now if we could all get behind a process of alignment instead of consensus, this would be a much more viable term to use :)

[Elvi]

You see, we teach beastgirl (my daughter) a totally opposite way, to what you say children should be sakujo.

I encourage her to read, view and listen to, what she wishes to, (within reason of course).
Myself an Atheist and Strangely an Agnostic, don't refuse to have religious books in the house, or watch programs about religion, I infact bought her her first and (come to think of it second) bible.

What we do, though, is discuss these things with her.
When she came home from school and declared herself a Christian and that she loved Jesus, we asked her why and gave her our points of view.

Infact recently, she has declared an interest in Veudeuism (whichj I think is the correct spelling?
So we talked about the ture meaning of that religion, I have found her web sites that discuss it as a true religion and Strangely found a magazine with a good article that discussed and rebuffed the Christian slant that was placed upon it. 

When she listens to music, we discuss the musicians, the origins of the type of music she is listening to and the lyrics and what they actually mean.

When she swears (or tells us that her schools mates have sworn), we tell her the meaning of the word and why it is insulting along with why we would prefer her not to use it.

The list goes on, sex, racial differences, violence in programs and the real world, why we are for or against wars, why books written in the 50' and 60's can be seen as racist/sexist, we discuss, listen to her point of view and give her our opinions upon the matter.

Not allowing children to see, hear and discuss things is a blinkered way.
To me, that is indoctrination, not education and it is unfair to lump all Christians in with the fundamentalists and say that 'they' are bad 'christians' for not doing so...

[Sakujo]

It seems you've overlooked what I said. I said that the Christians look forward to a day when God/Jesus will reign, and thus all the unfaithful will be slaughtered. Ignoring Revelation (since it's Littered with details about the end of all things and massive slaughter), here are some quotes for you.

Mat 13:41      The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
Mat 13:42      And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 22:12      And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
Mat 22:13      Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 22:14      For many are called, but few [are] chosen.

Mat 24:33      So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors.
Mat 24:34      Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
(Hilarious that this never came true, and Revelation & the end times are so strongly believed to be for now.)
Mat 24:35      Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mat 24:36   ¶   But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Mat 24:37      But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(Noe being Noah, meaning the world covered in sin, the majority slaughtered, and a few saved through baptism{ {Noah water, Jesus spirit/confession}.)
...
Mat 24:50      The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and in an hour that he is not aware of,
(This likely being the reason for fear that Revelation is right around the corner.)
   Mat 24:51      And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Of course, these beliefs come from a collection of writings that say sin leads to disease and death, such as in John 5.

Jhn 5:14      Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

Hbr 10:26   ¶   For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Hbr 10:27      But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Hbr 10:28      He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Hbr 10:29      Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Hbr 10:30      For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Hbr 10:31      [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

2Pe 3:7      But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
...
2Pe 3:10   ¶   But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


Jud 1:5   ¶   I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
Jud 1:6      And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jud 1:7      Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jud 1:8      Likewise also these [filthy] dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Jud 1:9      Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Jud 1:10      But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
Jud 1:11      Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Jud 1:12   ¶   These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds [they are] without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Jud 1:13      Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
Jud 1:14      And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15      To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Jud 1:16   ¶   These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling [words], having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

Luk 19:27      But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

Finally, here's one of my favorite parallels from Revelation.
2Th 2:8      And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Rev 1:16      And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance [was] as the sun shineth in his strength.
Rev 2:16    Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Rev 19:15    And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:21    And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which [sword] proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.



So there's some of the evidence for that, though there is more. And that's the thing about Christianity, it's filled with opposing statements and characters. There are evil men and good men who are praised, people in one book lifted up, and in another slammed. Jesus, himself, morphs from page to page.

Don't you just love the quote from Luke? Since it's said in the immediacy, it can be interpreted as either a future statement for the day of judgment, or as a slip showing the violent Jesus that comes out from time to time.

(For the sake of context, here is the entire section from Luke, and a very brutal one, from which that comes. Note the parable ends at 25, and Jesus's follow-up begins at 26.

   Luk 19:11   ¶   And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
   Luk 19:12      He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
   Luk 19:13      And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
   Luk 19:14      But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this [man] to reign over us.
   Luk 19:15      And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
   Luk 19:16      Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
   Luk 19:17      And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
   Luk 19:18      And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
   Luk 19:19      And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
   Luk 19:20      And another came, saying, Lord, behold, [here is] thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
   Luk 19:21      For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
   Luk 19:22      And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, [thou] wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
   Luk 19:23      Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
   Luk 19:24      And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give [it] to him that hath ten pounds.
   Luk 19:25      (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
   Luk 19:26      For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
   Luk 19:27      But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.)

But shouldn't this be expected? This is the same Jesus who said

Mat 11:20   ¶   Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
Mat 11:21      Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
Mat 11:22      But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
Mat 11:23      And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
Mat 11:24      But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Note: Jesus is openly saying here that Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom could have been saved, but Jesus/God chose Not to do what would have led to their salvation. (This is especially cruel for those of you who know the full story of the destruction of Sodom, complete with the begging for the peoples' lives.)


So, as I was saying, Christians really don't have a Choice to respect civil liberties where they are capable of violating them. God's law is absolute, and will be executed in any case where it can be without violating the laws of society, unless the laws of society restrict god's law, in which case the laws of society are to be violated.

Again, the only real dilemma for Christians is whether Jesus's stance on authority as put in place by god means voting is wrong or not. (Unfortunately, many may not even recognize this as a dilemma.)

This has nothing to do with that the individual chooses, it's Demanded by their belief system. It doesn't matter if they think that they're right in not acting a certain way if the bible says to do such a thing, unless they renounce the bible, and then they have A Lot of explaining to do about the sources for their beliefs in "god" and Jesus", unless they're a casual person who doesn't think it really matters, in which case they really have no claim to "Christianity", as the real meaning of the word is supposed to be derived from "disciples of Christ", and to be a disciple, to be exactly as one's rabbi (Uh oh, that {along with the fact that Jesus never abolished the OT Law covenant to satisfactory requirements} would mean they should follow the Jewish covenant laws of God, too!), requires actually Knowing the rabbi.

But this rant on Christianity has gone on long enough, again. I'd be happy to begin a study of it elsewhere, if there's demand for it. I Really hate the religion, having come out of it after forcing myself for so long, then going through so much brainwashing. The after-effects are nasty.

Again, yes, sensible is subjective, but I support inter-subjective means. If there is anything objective, we can never be certain that we know it.

Finally, working in a school district I've been acquainted with No Child Left Behind and teacher's opinions of it enough to want to smack Bush crazy.


Edit: Not to tl;dr this, but I forgot the comment abotu raising kids.

What I was saying was directed at the Christians, like the woman, who have to be totalitarian to some extent, according to their religion (based on the bible, folks. NT included.). This goes twice for those who don't want their kids "seeing anything bad" in general.

Even so, every parent is totalitarian/indoctrinating in some ways. I wasn't recommending it for everything. It's a fact that the authoriTATIVE process is best for all parties involved. However, when subjects that one Doesn't want their kid knowing about come up, you have to draw a hard line and take personal responsibility, not immediately ban anything related to it from the entirety of the public sphere.

It's not like someone erected a hologram of the movie in the middle of the park, and even if they had, why is the parent incapable of convincing their child to stay away from it? That's my issue here; that the parent is only taking responsibility as far as to remove something from all access to the public at the school.

[Sherona]

Rather then point out the OBVIOUS about the scriptures you have provided (that this is talking about the time when christian dogma says Jesus will return and slaughter the Anti-christ and his armies, which could also be observed that the anti-christ and his followers would be demonic..also that this is talking about the final judgement..not taking the laws into their own hands)..


*shrugs* There are always those who take words written thousands of years ago, written in a fashion that was custom thousands of years ago, literally and try to spin it aroudn their own laws and customs...sorry Sakujo, but whatever christian sect you were brougth up in must interpret those passages way different then any christian church i have ever been in.

Edit: that is why there are so many different Christian denomination...so many translations and interpretations. The passages above are interpreted by most christian churches as to be figurative, parables, or talking about the final judgement that is suppose to happen after the seven year tribulation that is spoke about in revelations. Yes Jesus said that Sodom and the others could have been saved..only if (according to christian dogma PLEASE do not assume that I buy into the christian faith..really..I am just agnostic..) they had been judged under Grace, and not by Law. Before Jesus- certain damnation due to the first sin...after Jesus-grace, their is forgiveness now ...THAT was jesus' point...in most christian faiths.


It is not christianity, unfortunately, that is beleagured (is this the right word?) by misconceptions or the few way out there sects that seem to be rather vocal..its all religions out there..


frankly if you want my view..I won't say I am athiest because I do think that there just MIGHT be a higher power..I jsut think if there is, then human's are probably not advanced enough to understand it.. *shrugs*. /end rant. I am done. :)

[ZK]

I thought this was about book banning, not Christianity. The Christians that voice their opinion and be completely off basis and make a fool of themselves are not the only ones proclaiming to ban books. Coming from a multi-religious bases family (I swear, I have members of just about any pathos of religion, aside from Islamic and some others, primarily Christianity, Catholicsm, Shintoism and Bhuddaism [Yes, members of my family converted to other religions) I just had to say that.

If you want to debate on the intepretations of the Holy Scripture known as the Bible for Christians, you're more then welcome to make a new board about it in this same P&R board.

As for book banning, a lot of books do need to get banned, but see, it's not the -right- ones targeted by the media and group conscenses that are the ones that need to be banned... or at least, out right regulated.

I correct to what I stated, there are books that need regulation, warning labels and be handled like adult material, but that's a whole 'nother ball game. If people cared (as a whole) we wouldn't have this problem, but alas, the majority doesn't care unless it is happening to them and them alone.

[Sakujo]

"Rather then point out the OBVIOUS about the scriptures you have provided (that this is talking about the time when christian dogma says Jesus will return and slaughter the Anti-christ and his armies, which could also be observed that the anti-christ and his followers would be demonic..also that this is talking about the final judgement..not taking the laws into their own hands).."

You're wrong, actually. In the scriptures I listed and those in Revelation there is a distinction between those slaughtered physically and spiritually, and those slaughtered who are "demons" and those who are human. Furthermore, there is no single person "anti-Christ", and some events in revelation (actually Many) occur Before the final judgment, as All physical bodies are resurrected for the final judgment, and then the evil destroyed again (hence why it is called the second death). Furthermore, there is no seven year tribulation Anywhere in the bible.

Finally, Sherona, you're simply wrong about putting the figurative, allegorical, etc tags on those verses, and your assumption that I was simply a part of one of many Christian sects. I began memorizing the KJV when I was three or four (not sure which, exactly), and grew up in a non-denominational church, and by the time I left Christianity completely I had worshiped and done intensive study with around 14 different denominations. I was studying to be a minister.


For reasons why what I have stated above are true, anyone can PM me, as I've more or less received a request to discontinue speaking openly on the subject. If enough people want me to tell them, or I receive a request for this, I'll make a rant topic on Christianity and elaborate on what the bible actually says, the various "forms" of Christianity (Disciple, Contradictory-Biblical, and Generalized/No true adherence), and my personal experience with them.

There is at least one book that I think should be banned.  I really think "The Anarchist Cookbook" should be banned.  Or maybe someone can tell me why a book about making things like letter bombs shouldn't be.

As for Harry Potter, or the Golden Compass?  Can't say that I have read them, can't say that I ever will.  Just can't find the interest to read them.  I think there are plenty of books someone might find objectionable, and I would say, don't read them.

Now, I think I would find it... uncomfortable if a school would require those books to be read.  Since there is so much bad felings against them.

The Anarchist cookbook could be useful in case of there ever being a time when the things in it are, well, needed. (Martial law with evil intent, invasion by another country, etc.)

As for HP and GC being material schools can't force one to read, you're on very shaky grounds, because there are books from all viewpoints  (and some I had to read in school) that have people who have "very bad feelings" about them.

[Elvi]

There are things that I would love to bring up about that post Sajuko, but as A siren has already asked for us not to continue on the subject here (as it is off topic on this thread), BEFORE you posted your reply and you say you have been asked to refrain on posting like this, perhaps it is wsie to just let the subject drop?

[Vekseid]

Split from the book banning thread.

Since Sakujo said he left Christianity a few months ago, and just about everyone I know who has done that went grinding their ax for about a year afterwards, I have some sympathy. We do have rules, however, and we ask that they be followed.

1: We are particularly sensitive to off-topic subjects in this forum and in Elliquiy U. You can always make a new thread and link to the old one when your subject differs significantly. This rule came between the last post in the thread and your post, which is why you might have been led astray.

2: There are many definitions of Christian, however, between Gnosticism, Unitarianism, Trinitarianism, and the countless heresies that they had spawned, the only solid definition of Christian is one who accepts Jesus as their savior. So you write things like...

3) Harry Potter is demonic, etc, etc to Christians, because those are the definitions they've thrown onto it

As if it's demonic to all Christians, or even a majority (somehow I doubt that).

4) Since when can a Christian care about things like civil liberties? If Jesus came back, they'd be begging for the immediacy of their promised totalitarian state where all offenders to God are killed in an instant. (Seriously, it's in the bible. I was a Christian until months ago.)

Biblical Inerrancy is very recent practice, held by a minority of Christians, many of whom treat the less wholesome parts of the Bible as pieces that, as a culture, we have gained the ability to move beyond.

5) Furthermore, if these "Christians" had taught their children "properly", the kids wouldn't be reading the books in the first place.

The Christians you refer to are not worried about -their- children, they are worried about yours, mine... just about any child from any Elliquiy member, really >_>

But the ones you refer to are not the majority. You can make these statements about fundamentalists, southern baptists, and so on - but Christianity in general is a huge faith covering many vastly different traditions, and some of the older, dead versions are beginning to gain traction again, such as Gnosticism.

In the future, please target your statements appropriately.  Thank you.

[Sakujo]

"1: We are particularly sensitive to off-topic subjects in this forum and in Elliquiy U. You can always make a new thread and link to the old one when your subject differs significantly."

Understood. I'll be more attentive to that from now on.

"2: There are many definitions of Christian, however, between Gnosticism, Unitarianism, Trinitarianism, and the countless heresies that they had spawned, the only solid definition of Christian is one who accepts Jesus as their savior."

That isn't a solid definition, and not even the least common denominator, as many people who call themselves Christian don't beleive he's the only way to heaven. The issue here is where the "Christian" line is going to be drawn, hence why I stated that there are three basic "formulas" for people who call themselves "Christian".

It is in the more typical Contradictory-biblical form that I speak of Christians, because that's what the majority of those who self-identify as practicing happen to be. These are the people who go to church, listen to their pastor or priest, and then think that the bible is generally without error, and all contradictions are just misunderstandings or things god doesn't do anymore, because, after all, god can't be wrong.

These need not be Southern Baptists, nor need they be fundamentalists. I've seen these people in the majority of the congregations in every sect I've visited.

Hence, when I say that "demonic" is a word they've thrown at books like Harry Potter, and I speak as though I'm speaking of all of them, that's exactly what I'm doing, from personal experience. Again, this applies to those who would actually stand up and call themselves Christians, devout, church-goers, etc.

My error was in not making the point more clearly that the generalized "Christians", the ones better suited to your "Jesus is my savior, and now I can do whatever I want. God is cool." kind of person, don't really fit into any reasonable definition of Christian via the definitional standard. These people may be the current majority, if only because they know so little about Christianity and think that believing in Jesus as savior means they're spiritual and saved for the afterlife. Still, without having any real adherence to the religious system/doctrinal pattern and actual knowledge of the bible, I, like the Christians who criticize them, see no reason for them to think of themselves as anything different from people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

There may be times where I mistaken use "Christian" when referring to the last group, the disciple group (and there are different factions within this group, being those who try to keep as much of the bible's teachings as possible, the gnostics, those who reject anything after the four gospels, those who reject every gospel but Mark, etc.), I'll normally say "disciples of Christ" or something clearly similar.


"4) Since when can a Christian care about things like civil liberties? If Jesus came back, they'd be begging for the immediacy of their promised totalitarian state where all offenders to God are killed in an instant. (Seriously, it's in the bible. I was a Christian until months ago.)

Biblical Inerrancy is very recent practice, held by a minority of Christians, many of whom treat the less wholesome parts of the Bible as pieces that, as a culture, we have gained the ability to move beyond."

I don't see how biblical inerrancy has anything to do with the believed coming totalitarian state of god. Those who cherry pick the bible, and even those who see it as largely full of error, in general still espouse a majority of the bible's teachings, especially as it relates to future events (because they have no other real ties to modern life, I'd say). Furthermore, it seems as though you're describing the idea that parts of the bible are simply out-dated, and that it was written for people in a specific time, which fits into the "generalized" "half-Christian" group.


"5) Furthermore, if these "Christians" had taught their children "properly", the kids wouldn't be reading the books in the first place.

The Christians you refer to are not worried about -their- children, they are worried about yours, mine... just about any child from any Elliquiy member, really >_>"

Sadly, this is also true, but the initial concern is nearly always for one's own or for "the sake of ridding evil and blasphemy".


"In the future, please target your statements appropriately.  Thank you."

In the future I'll clarify specifically what I mean by Christian, until everyone understands what I'm saying.

[Elvi]

In the future I'll clarify specifically what I mean by Christian, until everyone understands what I'm saying.

And while you are doing that Sajuko, please remember that this is an international site.
There are one hell of a lot more Christians in this world than just those in America.

As I have said before, I am not a religious person, but I have friends and relatives who are and I get very annoyed when someone uses a Generic term to lump them all together.

[kongming]

Yeah seriously, the word itself merely means "Slave of Christ". So anyone who decides they worship and serve Christ is, wait for it, a Christian! Sure, other branches can call them wrong, misguided, evil or even heretical, but they can't correctly call them un-Christian.

There are many different types of Christian - Heck, depending on where you want to draw the lines, there can be as many types of Christian as there are Christians, each viewing their faith a little differently. But they all share one trait - from the ones who help feed the poor and volunteer for charity work or looking after children, all the way to people who commit genocide in the name of Christ - they worship Christ, and that means they are Christians.

The term can't really be used to say that many things about even a clear majority of them, much the same as you can't really say that many things that applies specifically to all Virgos or Libras.

[Elvi]

Out of interest, mainly because I wanted to see how many there were I have just googled,  "list christian denominations worldwide"

This popped up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

and even with the inacurate 'wikki' it's an impressive list

[Sakujo]

Yeah seriously, the word itself merely means "Slave of Christ". So anyone who decides they worship and serve Christ is, wait for it, a Christian! Sure, other branches can call them wrong, misguided, evil or even heretical, but they can't correctly call them un-Christian.

There are many different types of Christian - Heck, depending on where you want to draw the lines, there can be as many types of Christian as there are Christians, each viewing their faith a little differently. But they all share one trait - from the ones who help feed the poor and volunteer for charity work or looking after children, all the way to people who commit genocide in the name of Christ - they worship Christ, and that means they are Christians.

The term can't really be used to say that many things about even a clear majority of them, much the same as you can't really say that many things that applies specifically to all Virgos or Libras.

Christian doesn't mean slave to Christ, even in its original Greek form. Furthermore, the general definition of "believing on/in Christ" needs clarification of the meaning from the original source, wherein "believing on" meant an act of trust and submittance. What could a Christian submit to but either Jesus directly (as in the case of the Disciple groups) or the bible (as in the case of biblical-contradictory groups)?

Once again, the final group who generally hold the extent of their belief to "the bible is right, Jesus saves em from hell cause I say he's god" to "Jesus is a savior, there are many paths to heaven. he was a good guy." Don't fit into this group, because A) they have no idea what they're talking about, and B) how can one submit to something they know nothing of?

So, again, even Formally, the word applies to one of two groups, and of those two one is the majority, and would be the generally understood section. Again, this isn't merely my thinking, it's the thinking I've encountered in group after group of believers and non-believers.


And honestly, it's humorous to me that those who are responding are attempting to be technically correct for the sake of "saving" those who Don't fit into the definition I'm using. I'm not attacking the people who don't know their own book and claim to be a part of something they aren't, I'm pointing out simple facts about the main Christian belief system. Those unaware of it are simply that. If they became aware of it and decided to stick with it (the mainstream, biblical-contradictory model), then they would be subject to the same insanity.

This is why the only respect that I Do have is for the disciple groups, because they actually Consider what they claim to be a part of, follow it, and use their heads in doing so.


Edit: Allow me to clarify something. Biblical-contradictory Doesn't mean that the bible is their only source (sola scriptura or otherwise standing) for religious guidance. They may have other contradictory forms of religion, such as that within the Catholic church's traditions and catechism.

[Moondazed]

Ahhhh... the righteousness of youth :)  You may want to work on your persuasive conversation skills if you want people to hear what you're saying instead of reacting to your inflammatory language.

And for the record, I'm not Christian, you aren't personally offending me... just saying that your choice of wording is not conducive to considerate debate.

[Elvi]

It's really nice to know that you are being 'amused' by us Sajuko.

Next time I bump into the local Vicar (who by the way, had a very interesting chat with my daughter about Harry Potter, as he had read all of them and seen the films), I'll tell him that he doesn't know the book, (Bible) that he holds most Holy and that all those years of study and service have been useless.

This is where I walk away from this discussion...

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Maybe I'm tired, maybe I'm just not that bright, or maybe there is simply just a lot of text floating about but I feel compelled to ask, what is the point?  This sounds more like a rant than an actual debate topic.  So if a topic is up for debate, what is it?  All I see is a logic where either you believe this and are stupid or if you don't then you are stupidly following something you don't understand.  There is a lot of bitterness here masked under intelligent words, a decent grasp of theology, a touch of arrogance and quite a bit of confusion.  This isn’t the “study” you claimed to want in your first couple of posts, but someone wanting justification.

So the question is that even if there is a topic for debate, do you even want an answer?  A lot of your statements are very condescending and straight forward, as if you were the authority lecturing to children.  That leads me to think that you aren't wanting a back and forth conversation, you're wanting a podium to rant your beliefs from into an audience that you either think will agree or won't get it.  Those that don’t readily nod their heads to whatever the point of this “thing” is are said to be wrong or amusing to you. 

If this is a rant, put it under rants.  If this is a debate, then what are we debating?  Originally you stated that the point was pariental responsibilty, but I'm not seeing that anymore. The best I’ve seen in here is some references to whether the Bible supports the notion of civil liberties.  Is that what we are supposed to be discussing?

So help the uneducated here and part those Heavens so I can see the point. If anyone else gets it, let me know cause I'm certainly lost.

[Sakujo]

Asku, you'd have to note that this was separated from the Book Banning thread by a mod. This isn't the topic I said I'd open to "debate"/discuss the meanings of things in the bible. You're exactly right, I am acting as an authority here and standing in front of a podium, because all I'm getting are challenges to what I've said, and so I'm responding with appropriate facts. This isn't a discussion, this is people questioning my statements and me backing them up.


Edit: Though Elvi said she'd be walking away, I'll go ahead and answer her response, anyway.

Yes, the "Vicar", as you want to call him, is in the wrong, according to his holy book. It's more iffy with the Catholic system because of their emphasis on ritual and works, but the same line is still there, though now more based upon the dictations of the "Church" than upon the bible. While he may know the book in general, most Catholic priests seem to be rather clueless about it, though they know the "Church"'s views rather well. This sort of pseudo-biblical stance is why many Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christian.

The real issue at hand here isn't so much a question of who identifies with "Christianity", as much as it is what the basis for belonging is. If we went by the bible in whole for its own standards for affirming who is a part of "the body of Christ" and who is not, a large number of people would fall off, including Catholics and Protestants, but certainly those who take the "Jesus was a good guy" approach. If we exclude certain books, it gets a bit more tricky. Hence my three separations.

[Sakujo]

Then I'll say, to clarify for any further "Warriors of Justice", that my hatred isn't of Christians in general because they're Christians, my hatred is of the Christian system that's in place. For anyone else who bothers to come here and throw such ridiculous accusations at me, I'll just say "Read the topic first, make sure you understand what's being said, and if you still don't get it, either ask for clarification or leave the reply box alone.", because you're simply fueling the responses here. I have no problem entirely dropping this, except in as far as it comes to defending what I've said. I don't back down, but I'm not going to try to force this down people's throats, either.

Baka.

[strangely made]

Sakujo, only going to be brief because I don't normally discuss religion at all. But I do need to correct you on just one thing.


Elvi mentioned the local Vicar. He isn't a Catholic, Roman, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox or what ever sect of the Catholic church you care to think of.
A Vicar is the ordinary title give to priests of the Anglican church, specifically, The Church of England, as in 'The Mother church' of the world wide Anglican Communion.

Now as far as I know Anglican churches (Of which there a forty National Anglican churches world wide ) are Protestant not Catholic.

[Sabby]

Wow... you sir are passionate and opinionated, traits I share. But you gotta learn... A) when and how to settle down, and B) how to get a point across without being provocative.

Its not really a debate if you act as though your opinion here is the only one that matters or is correct, and if the aim of it is to persuade us into adopting your views, your going about it the wrong way. people won't listen to you if you speak to them like this.

I learned those 2 key lessons, and I got less and less fists in my face. I suggest you try and learn them as well.

[Sherona]

Ahhhh... the righteousness of youth :)  You may want to work on your persuasive conversation skills if you want people to hear what you're saying instead of reacting to your inflammatory language.

And for the record, I'm not Christian, you aren't personally offending me... just saying that your choice of wording is not conducive to considerate debate.

Indeed Moondazed :) I figured that out very shortly which is why I haven't really bothered answering anything on this board. For the record I am not Christian either, and while his words do not offend me personally either I never have been able to back away from a good debate..unfortunatly as you have stated his wording is not conductive to a considerate debate.

[Mia]

Ok, I tried to avoid getting into this and I will I just need to clear out my stand point in this. I’m from Sweden which may be one of the most no-religious countries in the world in short we don’t hold much for religion at all and I and what I believe in is colored by that. To me I have never really understood what this big fuss is about. Here we got an old set of books which is called “the bible”, the general message is: “Please be nice to each other”, why you that use the books as guide lines always seems to fight about how this is said is beyond my understanding. But then all major religions hold that thought: to be nice to each other. Problem is that when comparing religions suddenly you guys are fighting how it is said.

I think Monthy Python told the best story of them all in Life of Brian and how ridicules it all is. Just live by that simple phrase: “be nice to each other” and you will do fine. To follow a set of stories that has been written and re-written more times than we can count, most likely wrongly translated and changed so it would fit a bunch of male priest’s world view and then forced upon us… well I lack words.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So, you're not debating but simply offering your opinion.  While I realize your opinion was placed here by another, your original opinion was given in this forum.  The opinion was also given on a thread, I might add, that was fairly old.  Now someone as intelligent as you sound surely read the posts in that thread, along with the multitude of others you've posted in on this same forum, and realize this is the fighting floor.  So by putting your opinion here, it becomes open to criticism.  You cannot plead self-defense when you walk on the sands yourself.

Meaning that I again ask, what is your point?  You say look at the title and it says Christianity.  Are you debating whether Christianity should exist?  Are you asking us to give or deny justification for all practioners of this faith?  Are you arguing its values, influence, power or origins?  You said its the Christian system in place at some point.  So do you want to discuss the religious basis of the United States, the influence of the Christian value system in first world politics, the structure of Protestant Churches versus the Catholic Church or what?  

As for being an authority, I've had enough priests in my education to know that isn't truth.  One that I will never forget told us the first day of class, "Anyone who says they know the Truth is either a fool or a liar."  You don't know the truth, you're down here in the dirt with the rest of us.  Don't want to shove something down our throats, then stop coating it with crap.

[Mia]

I take it that post was to me?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Not at all.  Just kinda fell there cause I was writing it when you were putting yours up I think.

[Vekseid]

Christian doesn't mean slave to Christ, even in its original Greek form.

When applied to a noun, the -ian suffix means of, like, or belonging to.

Furthermore, the general definition of "believing on/in Christ" needs clarification of the meaning from the original source, wherein "believing on" meant an act of trust and submittance. What could a Christian submit to but either Jesus directly (as in the case of the Disciple groups) or the bible (as in the case of biblical-contradictory groups)?

Once again, the final group who generally hold the extent of their belief to "the bible is right, Jesus saves em from hell cause I say he's god" to "Jesus is a savior, there are many paths to heaven. he was a good guy." Don't fit into this group, because A) they have no idea what they're talking about, and B) how can one submit to something they know nothing of?

So, again, even Formally, the word applies to one of two groups, and of those two one is the majority, and would be the generally understood section. Again, this isn't merely my thinking, it's the thinking I've encountered in group after group of believers and non-believers.

Does anyone else see the irony in our friend declaring that something needs clarification and then proceeding to write these next paragraphs?

In my own, personal view, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, where Scripture is exalted above Christ, actually does separate the Southern Baptists from Christianity.  This is an important distinction from say, rejecting Pauline Christianity - many follow Christ and consider Paul's teachings to be, at best, advice.  Obviously, Christian homosexuals, Christians playing RPGs, etc. etc. must reject at least some of Pauline doctrine.

Basing Christianity on the Bible is silly - it didn't exist in complete form until three centuries after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. The New Testament was not finalized until the Synod of Hippo in 393.

And honestly, it's humorous to me that those who are responding are attempting to be technically correct for the sake of "saving" those who Don't fit into the definition I'm using.

No one's saving anyone at this point, merely trying to put up with your ego.

I'm not attacking the people who don't know their own book

Whose book? What book would this be? Surely you can't mean the Bible - as I've already mentioned, such a definition is ridiculous, as it excludes the first Christians by definition. Pauline Christianity is not all of Christianity.

and claim to be a part of something they aren't,

Again a bold claim.

By your definition, no one who holds liberal Biblical views is a Christian. The only Christians, in your narrow definition, are those who hold to Literalism, Inerrancy, and possibly Infallibility. The latter two are some very large groups, yes, but they never have represented the entirety of Christendom.

I'm pointing out simple facts about the main Christian belief system.

The main Christian belief system changes, you know. The words of the specific translation you have are fact in that they have been written on a piece of paper, etc. etc.  However, that they were translated properly, were authored by the person who wrote the original work, etc. etc. are not facts, merely beliefs until the originals can somehow be uncovered.

And if the majority of Christians eventually reject some or many of Paul's teachings, such as his rants on homosexuality, then that, too, becomes a part of Christianity by even this narrow definition of yours.

Those unaware of it are simply that. If they became aware of it and decided to stick with it (the mainstream, biblical-contradictory model), then they would be subject to the same insanity.

You keep on throwing out that term you've invented. Why?

This is why the only respect that I Do have is for the disciple groups, because they actually Consider what they claim to be a part of, follow it, and use their heads in doing so.

Perhaps you should look up other people's terms first, before making up your own? You are far from the only one to make these sorts of observations, and, obviously, have been making these observations for far less time than some.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Indeed Moondazed :) I figured that out very shortly which is why I haven't really bothered answering anything on this board. For the record I am not Christian either, and while his words do not offend me personally either I never have been able to back away from a good debate..unfortunatly as you have stated his wording is not conductive to a considerate debate.

Also has been watching this thread.  Likewise not Christian, nor has taken offense.   I post, only because instead of a debate and discussion.  This thread seems nothing more then a ranting lecture.  Where the author has declared himself an authority.   

So what defines this expert knowledge and authority. 

[Celestial Goblin]

Vekseid said most things I'd say and better than me.
The painfully intolerant people are only a faction of Christianity and definitely have no right to claim they're the 'original ones'.

[Cherri Tart]

Just live by that simple phrase: “be nice to each other” and you will do fine.

this is what it comes down to for me, as well... btw, i am Christian, and although i hardly consider myself devout, i do believe strongly in the main message which is love thy neighbor - and no, i'm not trying to be salacious here - i just think that that gets lost in all the arguments over this and that, and really, if everyone kept to that tenant, the world would be a much better place.  :)

[RubySlippers]

Well one in my opinion must seperate the acts and words of Jesus from the actions and words of His followers, and from the Old Testament.

The Jesus I read about in the Four Gospels and the Gnostic Texts speak of a teacher of Gods grace and mercy that walked and ministered to all including the poor and outcast and unloved. There is an early arguement I accept that the Bible should have been limited to the Four Gospels and other texts deemed secondary to those. Since what really matters to me is what Christ taught not His followers who may have had biases its clear in the Gospel of Mary (the Gnostic Text) they clearly might have attacked Mary of Magdela the most important of Jesus' followers outside the Apostles for not teaching the "proper" teachings. We are here talking of a woman that tended to Jesus personally, was at the Crucifixtion and was the first to see the risen Christ. Clearly by His actions she was very regarded and respected. I do consider the text since its not complete supportive but inciteful.

Its not an easy issue should Christians read the Bible as literal and unerring or assume that the book has errors but focus on the message and acting in accord with Jesus as He lived. I personally favor the latter.

Addendum: I do wish to add that I seperate my religious beliefs from public policy and actions, what is ideal and what can be done in the most practical manner must both be considered. Global Warming I'm not as heartless as people are thinking of me on the matter but what good is destroying economic strength and wasting resources when then is no strong assurances this will stop the problem? Rather put these resources after a consistant set result is most likely all can agree upon and work out where these are best used to help the most people that may not be in the end stopping Greenhouse Gas emissions drastically but some more moderate approach to other problems related to it. I don't feel this as inconsistant God gave us the faculty of reason that must be used, not just emotion.

[Sakujo]

It's really quite amazing watching this thread, as every time I think I've made myself clear, another (in this case a few) come along and post as though they've entirely missed what I said.

Again, when I say "Christians" in my original posts, I am referring to the biblical-contradictory group, those Unlike Cherri AND unlike the original Christian groups (Whose traditions are generally unknown).

I Never made the claim that biblical-contradictory groups were the legitimate line from these original groups, nor have I been so ridiculous as to say that this group will always be the typical identification of Christianity. At present, however, it is.

Believe me, the day that Pauline doctrine, along with much of the rest of the bible, is openly admitted to be bullshit, interpolation, etc, will be a great day. I've actually made a video series in the public forum dedicated to outlining one of the forms of disciple group that I think is worthy of respect and would do far better with evangelizing. No, I won't point you to it, because it contains personal details.

The reason I continue to use my distinctions on Diciple groups, biblical-contradictory, and Generalized is because they seem the most comprehensive definitions that are easiest to understand without much consideration. Perhaps I'm incorrect about that. Regardless, they serve my purposes for the moment.


Now, going post by post.

Mia: That's the problem; when it comes to the biblical-contradictory groups (and to some extent the disciple groups) the main message Isn't to treat others fairly/love them/whatever, the main message is a shared message, encompassing altruism, wrath & warnings, and slavery to god, the second of which is terribly violent and, if I may, reprobate, and the last of which is a frightening and nerve-wracking thing when one really delves into studying it. The bible is not a simple book, which is all the more reason why it should be discarded in general, and why the biblical-contradictory groups are so..well, crazy. Trying to live by that book will screw you up.


Asku: Correct, I'm offering my insights from over my many years of study and experience. They're obviously mostly negative.

Yes, I'm aware that anything I write here is up for being challenged, and I have no problem with that, but, as said, I'll defend my statements until I no longer feel liek doing so. I'm not pleading self-defense, I'm stating my reason for bothering continuing here when challenged.

Again, I didn't create the title, a mod did. I had no purpose for this topic, because I didn't intend to create it. I merely was throwing out criticism of the disgusting Christian system in place, which leads to people being as insane as the woman in the book banning thread.

If you want to turn this into an actual discussion, then yes, we could discuss whether Christianity should exist, in what form, and what ti should be doing. We could discuss whether the Christian faith is justified (or faith in god at all, for that matter), what the worth of its values, etc, are, the influence of Christianity, or the difference in structure between groups.

Your priest seems to have been making a generalized statement referring to the truth about god or life in general, in which case he would be right. However, in this case the statement doesn't stand upon firm ground, because we're arguing about a very limited system and what the followers are essentially obliged to do by their code of belief.


Vek: "When applied to a noun, the -ian suffix means of, like, or belonging to." Christ-like would make sense, but considering that, if I recall correctly, the word was created by outsiders, it's more likely that they meant "Those belonging to the group that follows 'the Christ'" I may be wrong.

Your assessment of the bible being put above Christ sounds odd, and also seems incorrect when considering the following line "All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society."

If you meant to say that the bible's entire message is taken as of more importance than Christ's alone, then you would be correct in your statement. However, this is the tradition of the Christianity we have been discussing all along (or at least that I have been).

"Obviously, Christian homosexuals, Christians playing RPGs, etc. etc. must reject at least some of Pauline doctrine."

If they are aware of Pauline doctrine, they certainly must reject it.

"Basing Christianity on the Bible is silly - it didn't exist in complete form until three centuries after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. The New Testament was not finalized until the Synod of Hippo in 393."

Exactly one of my points. I wish all people who call themselves Christian would recognize this and examine their beliefs.

"No one's saving anyone at this point, merely trying to put up with your ego."

You protested to my criticism of the Cristian system and Christians by pointing out that not all people who claim the Christian name fit into the definition I was using. That's what this whole argument has been about, and I find it odd that the beating of the dead horse continues, as I've stated over and over again that when I said Christian, I was referring to the typical identification (Even if not so typical in practice in individual lives worldwide), and not such disciple groups or "liberal Christians", as you would call them.

This is one of the reason I'm glad so many denominations have sprung up, they make it easier to clarify what you're talking about. Unfortunately the "Christian" name hasn't also split into groups to identify one's particular beliefs about 'Christ' and "god", such as something similar to the three identifications I've given. If that had been the case, we wouldn't even be arguing now.

"By your definition, no one who holds liberal Biblical views is a Christian. The only Christians, in your narrow definition, are those who hold to Literalism, Inerrancy, and possibly Infallibility. The latter two are some very large groups, yes, but they never have represented the entirety of Christendom."

I think that, at this time, that's a fair statement. They're something other than the typified system, and, as stated above, I'd love to see them call themselves something different. Mind you, I'd like to point out that I Have seen groups who do this, giving themselves another label than "Christian" for this exact sort of reason.

However, they need not hold to in errancy, infallibility, and full literalism at all to fit into what seems the modern definition of Christianity.

That merely seems to be a projection of your desire to attack what you perceive to be my arrogance and error.

"The main Christian belief system changes, you know. The words of the specific translation you have are fact in that they have been written on a piece of paper, etc. etc.  However, that they were translated properly, were authored by the person who wrote the original work, etc. etc. are not facts, merely beliefs until the originals can somehow be uncovered."

No disagreement here at all. I don't think Jesus even existed as a person, honestly, and we don't know who actually wrote the gospels in their original forms. Again, see at the top for my views on the possibility of change.

Asherah: "This thread seems nothing more then a ranting lecture.  Where the author has declared himself an authority."

That's what it is, (at least right now) more or less. Again, that's why I offered int eh original thread to start a new section in the Ranting area, not in P&R.

"So what defines this expert knowledge and authority."

Argumentation itself defines who is right and wrong to an extent. From there it's inter-subjective reasoning. The facts back up what I've said, so it's authoritative.

Celestial Goblin: Again, please read the whole thread. I've never claimed they were in lineage with the "originals", merely that they've held to a tradition of basing beliefs on scriptures.

Cherri: If that were truly the main (and better yet, the Sole) point of Christianity, I wouldn't be ready to destroy it at every reasonable opportunity.

At the moment, however, that view is regarded as "false" and "fringe", even though a great mass hold that sort of belief.

Ruby: Your opinion is a good one, but entirely denies the system in place.

"Its not an easy issue should Christians read the Bible as literal and unerring or assume that the book has errors but focus on the message and acting in accord with Jesus as He lived. I personally favor the latter."

This is where I disagree, though I think it's just due to the wording you used. I think the only trouble in seeing the bible as FULL of errors is because of the system in place. If the system weren't locking people into closed mind-sets, I think the bible may be mostly discarded within a generation or two, because it's just so Riddled with holes.

"Addendum: I do wish to add that I seperate my religious beliefs from public policy and actions, what is ideal and what can be done in the most practical manner must both be considered."

If only those in the system and those Generalized who follow those int eh system to an extent adhered to this.

[Humble Scribe]

The difficulty is that you want a certain group of people to 'represent' your rather narrow interpretation of Christianity. But as has been pointed out, a much fairer critereon is self-selection, i.e. those people who claim themselves to be Christians. You may disagree with some of those claims (although I still can't see a good reason why, and saying "I refer you to my tl;dr posts earlier" doesn't help much), but they claim it nonetheless. You are basically asking the entire world to accept your own self-derived (and somewhat specious) taxonomy. Sorry, but we don't. Now what?

[Sherona]

biblical-contradictory group

The problem is this term right here is your own made up term Sakujo, and as such it just identifies your own narrow minded beliefs that all christians who use the bible as the word of god (which..I haven't found any christian group who does not accept that the bible is the word of god..there are some who do not hold to it as the SOLE word of god but if I am not mistaken I don't think a single christian group does not subscribe to the belief that the Bible was inspired by God..please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption because I will be the first to admit that there may be groups of christians that I do not know about) are contradicting their bibles with their faith.

However, your reasoning is made by your own interpretation of a few scriptures, that others have interpreted in a different fashion. Face it, the bible is very very old, written in a time when laws and customs of man was very different..your ultra-literal depictions of the words in those verses you provided is only one interpretation, and frankly in all of my many years of study I have never ran across a christian who took those verses as literally as you seem to.

The bible is full of parables..hmm I can't think of the english word for the next term..is talking in code kind of (not exactly but right now I can't think of the right word, if I come up with it soon I will modify). For example, in the book of Revelation it speaks of a great Beast with ten horns and ten crowns that will torment the world for a period of Tribulation...now if I still actually followed the Christian faith then I would definitely NOT think that an actual beast is going to rise up with ten horns and ten crowns..its Figurative (I think this si the right word) and in some christian apocalyptic thinkers mind this symbolizes a One World Government, perhaps even the UN..*shrugs* Its called symbolism. Its speaking in terms that the people of the time period the bible was written in, that they could understand.

*shrugs* Again, religion is tough to argue or debate because so much of it relies on Faith, and I, for one, am hardpressed to tell someone "Your faith belief is wrong...Your God does not exist" Because just like they can't prove he exists to me, I really can't prove he DOESN'T exist *shrugs*.

[Sakujo]

Scribe: Again, if you'd actually read those tl;dr posts, you should have seen the logical reasoning, and also noted that this is more than jstu my own opinion.

Sherona: Continuing from what I said above, there are a number of groups who don't subscribe to the bible as the word of god, and rather view it as the writings of men reflecting on the past or somewhat inspired with personal opinion, and there are others who only view certain aspects of the NT as true and inspired, sometimes also considering it part inspiration and part opinion.

Your study is apparently very limited, Sherona, as nearly every high-level biblical scholar and pastor I have ever met take them literally. Furthermore, the content being literal or not has nothing to do with the bible being written in a time of now discarded customs and social realities. To say the bible was written only for its time, and then to say that it's the only revelation from god (as many do), is essentially to say that god doesn't really care about informing his people anymore. I hope you can see the point there.

Yes, Sherona, the bible is full of parables, but you seem to be taking that fact beyond its limits, as a number of Christians do, and are blanketing much of it as parabolic, when it was usually only a prophet who spoke in parables, and these parables were then followed with explanations that illuminated their meaning. People who wish to deny the more harsh aspects of the bible tend to claim that because parables were used, anything similarly harsh in the same vein must also be parabolic, which is simply not the case. It's like claiming that Revelation is merely metaphor and has no physical applicability. To say such a thing would be a ridiculous misunderstanding of the traditional chain of wording from the earlier NT books, unless one were to divorce Revelation from the NT and call it heretical or useless, as has been done before. This, however, is not the modern practice, as Much of current Christian doctrine rests upon Revelation and its ties to earlier scriptures.

Using the particular example you listed, yes, the elements are figurative in the poetic lining that is Revelation, but the book is implying that there will be a literal time of terror in which people will die, carried out in a form or by a being somehow related to the figurative beast. Of course, this is Revelation, whereas before you were talking about Jesus's own words, and those of his apostles and god's Prophets, which is an entirely different story and not so figurative. (That is, unless you take the entire bible as a a book of false stories for moral guidance, which would mean that Jesus is a myth, and then, Again, could you really call yourself Christian? You could also take the OT as merely figurative, but then you'd have to explain a lot of traditional teachings, why the NT has so many references to the OT as reality, many references to old prophecy, etc.)

"*shrugs* Again, religion is tough to argue or debate because so much of it relies on Faith, and I, for one, am hardpressed to tell someone "Your faith belief is wrong...Your God does not exist" Because just like they can't prove he exists to me, I really can't prove he DOESN'T exist *shrugs*."

Faith and being illusioned are two different things that are often confused, and that's part of where the real difficulty lies, due to people too stubborn to thoughtfully consider their beliefs.

As for the whole prove/disprove god, I find it pathetic to wimp out of a debate because I can't factually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that god doesn't exist. I do quite well with my persuasive arguments to show that it doesn't.

[Humble Scribe]

I don't know who these Bible scholars were, Sakujo, but I studied Revelation as part of a Classics degree, and on this side of the Pond it is most certainly regarded as a well-thought out attack on the Roman Empire, the Imperial Cult, the Goddess Roma (the Personification of Rome, usually referred to as the Whore of Babylon in Revelation) all dressed up in the language of Jewish Apocalyptic literature from the 1st and 2nd centuries BC.
Revelation even specifically states so in the text in some places. "Here is wisdom, for the seven horns are seven hills" etc. And how many cities at the heart of major 1st century AD Empires were legendarily built on seven hills?
It's late and I have to go to bed, but if you want me to start dragging out Chapter and Verse I can do so.

[Sherona]

every high-level biblical scholar and pastor I have ever met take them literally.

Perhaps, but in the Catholic, Missionary baptist, Pentecost, Southern Baptist, Freewill, Non-denominational, and just your run of the mill Baptist..I have yet to hear of any Pastor or Scholar ever claim that Jesus was saying to set up a government and kill anyone who did not believe in him..*shrugs* The Oral Roberts University, a christian ran college, is where I took my Theology courses...*shrugs* Again...like I said I have yet to have heard of anyone of the above denominations claim that jesus was all for killing of non-christians..exact opposite actually.. that Jesus preached to turn the other cheek..that to douse your enemies iwth kindness and that it would eat at their souls..*shrugs*

But anyways I am not here to tout my knowledge, or to say I know more then anyone else...frankly I will admit that I do not know everything (shock I know!) and I will probably hence forth not respond to this thread again when the only rebuttal I seem to get is "Your wrong because Abstract Pastors, and Nameless scholars say otherwise"...Without any evidence to the contrary provided by you, I must conclude that your 'side of the debate' is flawed.


Edit: I am not saying I am a scholar or hold a degree in Theology..I dont, I just took classes :) Didn't want it to look as if I am claiming something I don't have.

[Sakujo]

Sherona, that's because A) It's not the nicest part of the bible, B) few people really seem tot hink much about the Judgment Era, and C) interpretations differ on the exact way the non-believers will be killed.

Scribe's post shows something similar to what is probably the most "family-friendly", if it can be called that, version of interpretation, which does have strong backing. Basically, in this case Revelation is largely a condemnation of the world, and is speaking about the fact that god will take revenge, using themes from all over the other scriptures in its language. In this system, the ultimate verdict seems (And I say seems, because I have not studied all of the doctrines on this type of interpretation. I'm especially familiar with the Seventh Day Adventist renditions) to be that all non-believers will die in some catastrophic series of events (which various factions disagree about, regarding which events take place literally), after which the unfaithful are revived with the faithful in body form, at which point god will judge all and burn them up in an instant, this being the second death. In this interpretation, there is no "Hell", as it is normally thought of.

The killing of the non-believers is still there, it's just covered in many shades of gray.

Of course, the main flaw in this is the fact that these interpretations also heavily focus on Rome, in specific, while Rome doesn't quite fit all of the descriptions in place.

The best outcomes would be to have revelation thought of as not divinely inspired, and thus not a true part of the NT, or to see Revelation merely as a criticism.

Of course, one must then still answer other passages, like those I posted before.



And on that note, I've decided that I'm going to back off from posting here, as we're not getting anywhere. If Scribe wants to post some more about this interpretation of Revelation, however, I'd be interested in hearing it if it's any different from the general theme I was just elaborating that the SDAs of old are most noted for taking. A "fully critique" view of Revelation that actually seems to work and is backed up by a historical study is something I have yet to really see.

[Vekseid]

It's really quite amazing watching this thread, as every time I think I've made myself clear, another (in this case a few) come along and post as though they've entirely missed what I said.

1: You invent your own terms when older, more accepted terms exist. This is confusing and annoying. Use the commonly accepted terms, please. I have made several references to possibilities but, if they are not there, look it up yourself, or use the appropriate combination of groups that make up what you are referring to. As it is, near as I can tell you are calling conservatives by a derogatory term.

2: You don't use the quote tag. This is the epitome of being unclear, as your text blends in with the people's around you and it makes it very difficult to sort through your points.

3: Sometimes you claim to have addressed a point but ... take this example:

If you meant to say that the bible's entire message is taken as of more importance than Christ's alone, then you would be correct in your statement. However, this is the tradition of the Christianity we have been discussing all along (or at least that I have been).

You initially simply said Christian. Then made some confusing references to two specific groups, calling biblical conservatives the 'mainstream' and appeared to suggest that biblical liberals 'did not know their own book', on top of inventing your own terms for these groups. If you are speaking from another point of view, you need to make that clear, otherwise it is quite insulting.

You said you were talking about these sorts of Christians, then make such statements, then you are talking about Christians whom you claim not to be unless you exclude them from Christianity. At least one element is false in your statements relating to this matter.

[OldSchoolGamer]

"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves.  Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child."

Robert A. Heinlein

[Humble Scribe]

I think I probably misread you, Sakujo (I was a bit tired), and what you meant by 'Bible Scholars'. I was thinking of historians, you may have been thinking of theologians. I had a quick flip through this morning, and because my course was about "outsiders' views on the Roman Empire" we concentrated on Chapters 10-18, which are the main political allegory section. I agree that the trials and tribulations of 6-9 and the defeat of the devil and building of the New Jerusalem in 19-22 are full of God being unpleasant to the wicked. And I assume that was your basic point - that Christian scripture says that non-Christians will, at the Day of Judgement, ultimately be condemned to various unpleasant deaths and torments. So my argument was probably a bit moot.

So let's look at it another way. There are various ways of viewing the Bible;
A: It is a work of God, acting directly through human agents, and therefore perfect.
B: It is a work of God, acting through human agents, but because the agents were only human it may not be completely perfect, but nevertheless largely true.
C: It is a work of men who were inspired by God, and therefore the central truths of God's message are in there, but you may have to read between the lines on occasion.
D: It is a work of lots of different men who believed in God, but who probably all had different conceptions of Him, and bits have been added, changed and deleted over the centuries, and therefore if there is any kind of consistent message it is one produced by later editors and not the original authors.

Now I happen to believe in D. You are arguing that the 'true' Christian position is A. I am arguing that it is perfectly possible to believe in B or C and yet still regard yourself as a Christian. In fact C describes the position of most Anglican clergy I have ever met, one of whom is a good friend of mine who I went to University with.

[Sabby]

D: It is a work of lots of different men who believed in God, but who probably all had different conceptions of Him, and bits have been added, changed and deleted over the centuries, and therefore if there is any kind of consistent message it is one produced by later editors and not the original authors

Ok, why ain't you the Pope? :P because that one sentence is about the most sense I've heard in a long time.

[Sakujo]

Just out of curiosity, what's your opinion on the lineage of gospels, Scribe? For example, would you agree that Mark was probably the first, and the rest were based upon it, adding extra mythologies?

[Humble Scribe]

Just out of curiosity, what's your opinion on the lineage of gospels, Scribe? For example, would you agree that Mark was probably the first, and the rest were based upon it, adding extra mythologies?

Heh, you actually inspired me to go into the attic and dig out my old degree course notes. It was interesting reading back on it.

The suggested timeline is that Mark's gospel comes first, with Luke (probably also the author of most of Acts) and Matthew following later and both also drawing on other written/oral sources/traditions about Jesus' life which are collectively referred to as the hypothetical source 'Q'. John's Gospel appears to be later (around 100AD) and draws on a completely different tradition altogether. Luke's Gospel and Acts we dated to 60-70AD, with Mark maybe 10 years earlier.

[Sakujo]

After further consideration of what was discussed here, I've realized that even though I think the various groups should attempt to classify themselves better to help distinguish between them, the "Christian" label doesn't really belong to one specific camp. Since I have even stated before that there's no reason a person should be forced to hold themselves to what the current incarnation of the bible states, why should I think it's right to bind the label to only one, specific group in normal conversation? While Christian does originally mean a disciple of Christ from the biblical perspective, and perhaps belonging to or slave to Christ in the historical perspective, association with belief in Jesus is the modern connotation, and why shouldn't that be sufficient?

So I am here apologizing to all for my unnecessary insistence on designating one group the current "Main" Christian group. As well, I should probably ask more people what they see Christian meaning before I attempt to say what it seems the modern Christian "mainstay" group would be in the public mind, as simply because one group is most often represented int eh media (TV, print, and online), does not mean that said group is the majority concept.

Thanks for providing the debate that inspired me to continue to consider my thoughts and approach.

[Hunter]

Vekseid said most things I'd say and better than me.
The painfully intolerant people are only a faction of Christianity and definitely have no right to claim they're the 'original ones'.

And the painfully intolerant aren't exclusively Christian either.

[Celestial Goblin]

Oh, about the time I responded to this, my internet was down for long.

You shouldn't worry Sakujo and it's no problem. I was once in the same place as you, but I realized I was being unfair to many people.

And Hunter is right too. It's possible to be intolerant, prude and fanatical without any religious element to it. Purely secular, really.
(and you can find fanatical groups in almost every religion in existence...)

[Hunter]

And Hunter is right too.

*scribbles that down*

[Sherona]

Well stated CG, I myself have met some pretty intolerant atheist in my time as well :)

[HairyHeretic]

Assholes are assholes, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack of them  :)

[Sherona]

Assholes are assholes, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack of them  :)

lol that so should go on someone's Sig :P

[Rydia]

As for myself, I would tend to apply the word "Christian" in the broadest possible sense, so as to include as many people as possible that refer to themselves as Christian without excluding on the basis of dogma in the Bible, Pauline traditions, or papacy. 

Let me steal Bertrand Russell's definition of a Christian, since it's the one I use myself.  "I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian.  The first is one of a dogmatic nature -- namely, that you must believe in God and immortality.

...

"Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ.  I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men."

[Sabby]

My brother has a theory that Jesus Christ was simply a very gifted con man and was cursing his own grifting skills when on that cross.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Ok, me, I'm not christian AND I really do see big problems with the christian faith.  I really don't think that books should be banned either.  BUT why should parents be allowed to brain wash their kids in the first place. . .in response to your comment about telling them what to think about what they read.  Maybe sit down and have a conversation but I want my daughter to be able to take in the world as a whole, be able to come to me with questions, and believe what she feels right believing.  That's how I moderate it. 

[Sherona]

Wow at the thread necromancy. All these rather old topics coming back up on my lists. That being said, people rather like to stereotype christians into the nice little nitch that they have in their mind...particularly because the only christians the media shows on air are the bible thumpers, or those who are particularly apocalyptic...those are the ones that make the best "news" because of the controversy.

Most christians dont "Brainwash" their children. Most do not sit there and bomb abortion buildings, in fact when that was happening and the bombers were claiming to be christians, the entire christian community shuddered..Just I always have to be amused at the rhetoric that is constantly spouted against christianity when its no differentthen any other organized religion :)

Disclaimer: I no longer identify myself as christian, I am agnostic, so no I am not defending my "faith" though I was raised in a strict baptiste home. Nope no brainwashing going on...its called teaching..just like Muslim parents teach their children about Allah, Jewish parents teach theirs about Judiasm...*shrugs* Like I said..you got fringe cults like the Branch Davidian's underneath David Koresh, and suddenly everyone who calls themself 'christian' is forced to defend themselves constantly..its rather sad...I just wish the Media would try to show the WHOLE religion, rather then just excerpts of the stereotypical southern preacher "Andah! Weah, going toah, burn inah, Hellfireah..." Then perhaps people would not have such a narrow view on the religion.


Edit: I am not saying that ALL christians are these peaceful "just want to be left alone" type people...just like any faction be it religion or politics, will have all sorts of different types of people. I am fairly sure just like there are Terrorists out there that identify with the muslim faith causing people to wrongly assume all muslims condone the bombing of buildings and what not, there are sects to the people who identify themselves as christians that are not a nice bit.



A good example of the media's biasness toward the religion. I have seen about 20,000 articles about those churches who refuse to let homosexuals join. Have read 1000000 articles about the protestors of homosexual marriage who claim to be christian "But conviently forgetting the call to "Do not judge lest ye be judged." tenet. But not once have I seen an article about a church that did not ban homosexuals...in fact my mother-in-law has a female life partner AND pastors a christian church..so no, not all christianity is the pit of intolerant evil :P

[robitusinz]

<insert noun describing a group of people>, like all <insert noun describing a group of people> have their good eggs and bad eggs.

No one should have to defend their <insert noun describing group of people>.

Consider all of the different nouns that describe groups of people, and you'll soon see how ridiculous it is to talk about any one demographic in particular.  Wanna talk about faiths?  Races?  Country club memberships?  Social standing (hey, I'm a geek!)?  Music sub-culture?  It's all the same crap.

[Sherona]

I am all for healthy discussions :D In fact I have been known to play devils advocate just to spark debate and intelligent discussion :)


I just do not like when it goes from a Philosophical discussion to a "All <insert group of people>" or "Those <insert group of people>" as its stereotyping :) Whether its the "popular thing to do" or not :) Today its popular to be agnostic or atheist, while 30 years ago it was Popular to be Christian, 100 years ago it was Popular to be Catholic and anti-protestant...ok yes my years are probably wrong ont eh 100 years ago, but I am too much in a hurry to look it up, will look it up to see exact dates a little later. :D

I akin it to that people used to KNOW that the world was flat, KNOW that the sun orbited the earth and that the earth was the center ofthe universe. they used to KNOW that comets were not stars, but literal manifestation of some gods or the other wrath. Mankinds view on things have always been spoken in terms of constant and absolute...I believe it was one philosopher who said there is no ABSOLUTE truth, only the perception of Truth. :)

[The Great Triangle]

As far as your dates go, about 50 years ago it was popular to be Christian in America because of the threat from "godless communists" which made Americans identify more strongly with their religious roots.  Since about 250 years ago, being nonreligious has gone from being merely accepted to actively popular by the middle of the nineteenth century.  Anti Protestentaism was popular about 400-450 years ago, and anti catholocism has been popular in the United States for about 150 years, although in some circles it's still quite popular.


(is a history major)

[robitusinz]

I just do not like when it goes from a Philosophical discussion to a "All <insert group of people>" or "Those <insert group of people>" as its stereotyping :)

That was my point.  All that this thread's served to do is stereotype Christians as ultra-conservative bible-thumpers who brainwash their kids.  Is the stereotype true?  Of course it is.  There are plenty of Christians who fit into that stereotype perfectly, else the stereotype wouldn't exist.  However, the fact remains that not all Christians are like that.  In fact, the vast majority of them aren't.

The reason why I used the generic <insert group here> tag in my post is because this thread could easily be about "white people", or "black people", or "geeky people", or "stupid people", or "middle class people", or "rich people", or "handicapped people", or "athletic people", or "fat people", or "people who love ice cream", or "blonde people", or "women with big boobs", or "men with small feet", or "women named Joe"....  It's just formula.  You go, "Let's talk about X", and then you have a bunch of people who consider themselves experts on X throw out a few things about X, a bunch of people who are completely misinformed about X retort, then people who identify with X get offended, then the experts come back to "clarify" their positions after they realize how many people they pissed off, then the misinformed come back and go "I was right", then there's another wave of offense...etc. etc. etc. and the pendulum continues to swing.

Maybe if this thread narrowed things down to, say, "Liberal interpretation of the Bible vs. Strict interpretation of the Bible, which do you adhere to or agree with?", then you'd have a discussion on your hands, but just "Christians"?  I mean, c'mon...whoever doesn't like em will speak negatively, whoever is Christian will get offended, and whoever sympathizes will try to "ameliorate" the situation but fail to appease either side.  What kinds of facts can you bring into a topic like that?  Just go back and look at this thread...lots of conjecture and opinions, maybe some synthesis and extrapolation, but how many facts, or at least "expert opinions" are there?  Who can consider themselves an "expert" on Christianity, when there are thousands upon thousands of different sects out there claiming to be Christian?  Heck, there even exists a liberal Christian Swingers group (which the wife and I considered joining).

So, really, the end-all, be-all of a discussion on such a broad topic can only be the same as any discussion of any subsection of the world's population:  Some of them suck, some of them are cool.

[Sherona]

Oh I know you were saying what I was saying Robi, I just wanted to make sure I was clear that I was not trying to squash any sort of actual discussion :) Very nice post.

[robitusinz]

Oh I know you were saying what I was saying Robi, I just wanted to make sure I was clear that I was not trying to squash any sort of actual discussion :) Very nice post.

lol, ok, we're on the same page then.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Most christians dont "Brainwash" their children.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant any religion. . .parents shouldn't be aloud to brianwash them into believeing anything they say just because they way it.

[Sherona]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant any religion. . .parents shouldn't be aloud to brianwash them into believeing anything they say just because they way it.

Its not just religions that a HANDFUL of people do this in. Some Atheist brainwash their children, some psychiatrists, some soccer-moms.


Teaching children religion does not equate Brainwashing. Otherwise I would be brainwashing my kids by teaching them to pick up after themselves, to chew with thier mouths closed, and to try to be respectful when giving one's opinions.

[robitusinz]

and to try to be respectful when giving one's opinions.

I'm personally taking a pro-active stance and teaching my kids to be bullies.  Easy life, here we come!

[Sherona]

I'm personally taking a pro-active stance and teaching my kids to be bullies.  Easy life, here we come!

*laughs* :P

[ShrowdedPoet]

Its not just religions that a HANDFUL of people do this in. Some Atheist brainwash their children, some psychiatrists, some soccer-moms.


Teaching children religion does not equate Brainwashing. Otherwise I would be brainwashing my kids by teaching them to pick up after themselves, to chew with thier mouths closed, and to try to be respectful when giving one's opinions.

That's not what I meant either. . .Maybe I'm just not clear.  I'm talking about parents who tell their children they HAVE to believe something won't give them the facts and won't let them think for themselves what they feel is right. . .

[Trieste]

Parents who tell their children they MUST believe in something end up with angry rebellious children. It's the children whose parents quietly indoctrinated them so fully that it doesn't occur to them to question things that worry me. Questions may sometimes be difficult to answer, or a parent may feel like they need to put the child off ("I'll tell you when you're older") but they should never, ever be discouraged in my opinion ... religion is secondary to parenting style in that regard.

Perhaps, though, that's why I'm not a parent and do not plan to be.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Well, I have this thing about explanations.  I give them, for most everything.  I like for people to know why because when I was a kid I never really did.  This is going to be my teaching style (going to be a teacher) and is my parenting style.  I really wish that people would put more emphasis on knowledge than they did on what they THINK.  It just makes so much more sence to me. . .As long as my daughter knows (logic, look up the philosophy definition if you don't know it) about the religion, unless it's like nazis, I am happy for her. . .

And it's not just TELLING them the facts. . .it's teaching them. . .*sighs*  The world has me worried. . .

[Sherona]

Parenting should be a private thing imo. As long as no mental, physical, sexual, or emotional abuse is occuring. What is brainwashing to some, is simple morality to others. It does not hurt anyone to be told that god is in heaven, and that if you break the rules (which MOST are simply the same rules that we are expected to follow as citizens of most countries) you get punished (typically a form of hell).

I guess my issue is just the fact that deragotory terms are sprinkled liberally lately about lumps of people, I just wish people would exersize their right to speakt heir mind and have their opinions at the same time as trying to be respectful of others :)

[BlackRose]

Back to the idea on books...

I think this is amusing and should be read before considering that certain series, such as Harry Potter and D&D, are demonic and contain magic spells that could corrupt our youth and turn them into Jesus hating anti-christs

http://www.highdesertinsider.com/html/harrypotter_spellcasting.html

[Elvi]

If there is to be a discussion on parenting, then perhaps, instead of Grave digging a topic and then going off topic should be replaced by the starting of a new thread?

As a parent, I would be very interested in contributing, but not on a thread about Christanity.
They are, after all, different subjects.

[Sherona]

the parenting remark was not me grave-digging...that was shrowded again  a week or so ago.

The parenting remark directed directly at people who were claiming religious/Christian people Brainwash their children :)

[Elvi]

*nods*

You seem to be a little parnoid Sherona honey, it wasn't directed at you.*hugs*

Shrowded resurected the thread and apart from her first comment, nothing else mentioned is really relavent to the topic and it has wandered onto parenting in general.

[Sherona]

Not paranoid, perhaps just anoid by the recent bouts of necromancy :D....ok bad pun...but no less true :P

[ShrowdedPoet]

Back to the idea on books...

I think this is amusing and should be read before considering that certain series, such as Harry Potter and D&D, are demonic and contain magic spells that could corrupt our youth and turn them into Jesus hating anti-christs

http://www.highdesertinsider.com/html/harrypotter_spellcasting.html

*does a double take*  WHAT?

[Elvi]

It's what the topic was origionally started about Shrowded....

[ShrowdedPoet]

It's what the topic was origionally started about Shrowded....

uhm. . .no, I didn't understand the post. . .and thanks for being snide and rude. . .

[Moondazed]

Snide and rude?  Geez... oversensitive?

I thought that link was a hoot! *giggle*  Thanks for sharing :D

[ShrowdedPoet]

Snide and rude?  Geez... oversensitive?

I thought that link was a hoot! *giggle*  Thanks for sharing :D

Not oversensitive. . .just getting irritated because I wasn't getting off topic just trying to clarify my first post which was on topic. . .someone said something about a peice of it and they read it wrong or misunderstood and I was trying to clarify and now people are saying that I messed the topic up and I'm slightly irritated.

Yes I thought the link was quite amusing but I didn't understand what was written in the post. . .I liked the pictures of the guy. . .lol

[Elvi]

*sighs*
How in hell's name was that snide or rude?

In asking that a topic stays 'on topic' is hardly being snide or rude....
A clarification is a short, 'sorry this is what I meant'.
Going off topic is when it becomes the sole topic on a thread that wasn't intended for that perpose.

A little like this one now.
So if you have a problem and you see me/my post as being snide and rude, then either PM me or a Siren.

[ShrowdedPoet]

*gives up*