Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's not quite exactly the same, I think you have made some interesting points. But emotional non-argument opposition can be expressed in many words or one word.
I'm trying not to laugh. That is a beautiful construction of two sentences.
If it's any consolation, the feeling is mutual. People who accuse Christians of being racists do not endear themselves to my affections, and being forced to wade through postmodern nonsense to obtain a technical education in fine writing has led me to utterly despise the existence of literary theorists. Why they can't leave budding writers alone is beyond me.
I'm not allowed to directly implicate anyone as believing anything they don't acknowledge they believe, as that is against the rules of the forum under the calling out rule. I meant "person who believes in naturalism in general" and nothing more.
I was clear on that from the beginning. The Bible does not teach racism. Do I need to cite Galatians 3:28 again?So, @linux.poet and @Hans Blaster, are we all clear now that the Bible doesn't teach racism?
Thanks, and the second "sentence" was intended for humorous effect.
I have no experience with being an English major or understanding of how they build there curriculum, so I don't know why they get caught up in these weird things. Not a fan of postmodern anything. (I find modernism more appealing, especially in architecture.)
In review, I think it was your use of "one naturalist" rather than "a naturalist" that sparked my confusion. No problem.
With non-denominational Christianity, there are indeed thousands upon thousands of Churches who aren’t affiliated with each other that have different interpretations on Sacred Scripture. Each leader is its own interpreter.Do you recognize that?Basically that is what your argument against my intellectual argument amounts to. “I’m not interested” and “which is a silly thing to say” are just as much as emotional non-arguments as “Rubbish!”. Apathy is an emotional response - namely lack of emotion- and it usually has fear as a root, not caring about the danger in order to maintain mental function in face of a threat that needs mental capacity to defeat.
I established that literary thinkers want to blame racism on Christianity and I properly situated their opposition in anti-Christian philosophy and a veneer of historical argument. Your posts have repeatedly declared disagreements with the finer points of my analysis and a lack of interest in the whole. At any point one had the option to stop participating, and if I was annoying, I did not twist anyone’s arm. One has an infinite capacity to reject what one does not like; that proves nothing.
In any event, naturalists are not racists because there are multiple scientific studies that prove that race does not exist biologically - there is no correlation between skin color and internal make-up. I have no idea why one naturalist would care if some Christians agreed with them on that point. Maybe because it pokes a hole in the naturalist/psychoanalytic idea that Christians are lacking in intelligence.
One of the advantages that non-denominational Christianity has in situating authority in Scripture as opposed to the papacy is that we can easily reject or criticize people who preach anti-Scriptural teachings. It doesn’t take us hundreds of years to repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery. I hate to say it, but Catholic historical blunders have given credence to Christianity’s detractors, so much that I ended up distancing myself from Catholicism in order to clarify that I am not a racist for believing in Christianity in the academic situations I referred to above. It was the easier course, though perhaps not the best.
On the other hand, the Vatican has repudiated said doctrine, and the Church calls racism an intrinsic evil, so I think Catholicism has learned their lesson there. Collective sanctification of the Catholic papacy has been very visible and public over the years, including their faults, but we do believe that believers in Christ should be afforded the opportunity to repent and turn from evil, and if they do correct their mistakes, that should be recognized and respected and not brought up again. Secular scholars are just not so forgiving.
This does not mean that the Catholic approach is without its advantages either; the flaw of the non-denominational approach is that it situates a person’s faith in the psychological performance of each individual. This allows emotional abuse to run rampant in families because of the internalized criticism for lack of Scriptural compliance, forcing people to “perform” gender roles instead of just understanding gender via body understanding as in Catholic theology. Another glaring flaw is to blame circumstances on lack of Scriptural compliance and performance - using 1 Thessalonians 3:10 to abandon the poor and needy, for example. The cruelty is horrific. But hey, at least we’re not racist!
I honestly think that Christians have a lot to learn from each other. Maybe in the hypothetical unified Christian church of the future we should leave caring for the needy to the former Catholics and academic battling of the Rousseauist postmodern rascals to the former non-denominational folks.
