I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore
- Thread starter AvisG
- Start date
- Status
Carl Emerson
Well-Known Member
- Dec 18, 2017
- 14,734
- 10,041
- 78
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Has the phrase "word salad" ever been used in reference to your posts? I'm not invoking or otherwise attempting to channel Kierkegaard. I simply mentioned him in passing at the end of one post. You proceeded to ask me a question about that reference, which I attempted to answer. As far as I can tell, you seem to use virtually every post of everyone on every thread as some sort of launching pad for your Philosophical Hermeneutic strutting and posturing, which unfortunately does bring to my mind the phrase "word salad." OK, you're presently reading Kierkegaard - we're duly impressed.
My views are my views. If you disagree with them, disagree with them.
The Fallacy of Division? You must be digging pretty deep into your Spalding Guide to Logic for that one.
I would also add be careful about this “anger” you feel. It can be used against you and I can certainly see this happening. Satan seeks to devour, and the only way to counter that is by running to God.
People, people, people. I am surely the least angry person you will ever meet. I have written numerous pieces of absolutely silly humor for publication and continue to do so. AS I THOUGHT I MADE CLEAR ABOVE - but, hey, who ever reads more than a couple of posts before leaping to conclusions? - I used the phrase "mad as hell" merely as a slightly droll tie-in to the clip from Network, which I happen to love. I am disgusted and dismayed by "Christianity," but I am scarcely boiling with rage. I picture Jesus as rolling His eyes. nudging the Holy Spirit and asking "How on earth did it ever turn into THIS?"
That begs the question. Is it God's church that is still growing or is it "Christianity"? Is "Christianity" the rock on which Jesus said He would build His church? Ya think?
Upvote
0
Another of my favorite clips that is probably applicable to every thread on every forum on which I've ever participated over the past 25 years. I'm not pointing fingers, mind you. I will let readers decide who the shoe fits - or shoes fit, as the case may be.
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,198
- 9,967
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
If you want to play the roll of troll, please be our guest, but I for one will stand in solidarity with my fellow Trinitarian Christian brethren against your amorphous and otherwise indecipherable tirade ...
... and yes, I've removed my 'like' icon from your OP.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,592
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes, he felt a labor was worthy of their wages. For myself, I just want my reward to be from God. We can not out-give God. He gives to us abundantly above and beyond all we could ever ask or think. So Jesus teaches we are to give to those who have no way to repay us. There is a big trend today to pass it on. Instead of paying people back for their kindness and generosity find someone that needs help and pass it on to them.
Upvote
0
HatGuy
Some guy in a hat
- Jun 9, 2014
- 1,008
- 786
- Country
- South Africa
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
.
The point is that the Church is Christ's Bride, and we don't get a choice about the Church - we have to love her and take care of her whether we like her or not.
Jesus was clear when He said that the Kingdom would always consist of wheat and tares, and they are just going to have to grow up together until the end of the age when He separates them. We ought to expect to see tares, but also be able to make a distinction between that and wheat.
I think in an earlier post you mentioned you're involved in law in some way. Well, I would expect you to have a bit more ability to make finer distinctions and not throw out generalised statements that take into very little (or no) account the nuances at play. And besides, if you switch on Christian T.V., what do you expect to find? If you keep looking in the same places at the same things, are you expecting to find anything different? Maybe all the energy should be spent looking elsewhere?
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,198
- 9,967
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
And yes, 'word salad' has been used by a few other gents here on CF to describe my posts, but it's not typically those who interact with me here in the Christian Philosophy and Ethics section who have done so...
"Spalding," ay? Sweet. Fortunately, I have more than just the Spalding Guide to Logic at my disposal.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
OH, NO. Please, please, I literally LIVE for your "likes'! Is that the Christian Forums version of having the epaulets ripped from my uniform? Or perhaps this? Say it ain't so, O Leader of the Solidarity Movement.
Again, this begs the question. Is "Christianity" the Church? Why - simply by claiming that title for itself? Am I allowed to say, or are others allowed to say, "Sorry, I don't believe that is in fact the Church. I choose not to be associated with it." If not, why not?
Fine. I simply believe the tares are too prevalent and dominant within "Christianity" for me to want to be associated with it. I simply believe that my spiritual walk will be enhanced by disassociating myself from it. Why would this bother you? If you disagree with my views, disagree with them and follow your own path with my best wishes.
Yes, I practiced law for almost 38 years. If you include the three years of law school, it's up to 41.
You ask, "If you switch on Christian TV, what do you expect to find?" That's a curious question. The assumption seems to be that I should EXPECT to find what I in fact DO find. Why would that be true? Why would I not expect to find something more in line with what Jesus was actually talking about?
I can apply the same logic to all of "Christianity." If it is doing God's work as it claims, and is indwelt by the Spirit as it claims, why would I expect to find what I do find? Indeed, why would I find what I find? Why would "Christianity" not look FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT than Buddhism, atheism or any other congregation of humans? We can keep saying "human nature" - but it is "Christianity" that claims to be uniquely indwelt by the Holy Spirit and to be uniquely in a process of transformation and sanctification. Where's the beef?
Sure, I could make all sorts of fine distinctions within "Christianity." That is precisely what I explained at the outset I was NOT doing. Sure, I am painting with a very broad brush - and for a purpose. I have satisfied myself over my 48 years as a Christian that "Christianity," taken as whole, is simply not even vaguely what Jesus was talking about. I don't care whether Denomination X is "better," "more biblical" or "not as far off the path" as Denomination Y or Denomination Z. I don't believe that any of it is even in the ballpark of the radical transformation in lives and society that Jesus was talking about. If you disagree with my views, then find your niche within the existing structure and go forth with my best wishes.
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,198
- 9,967
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
And here I thought I was removing lint from your Halloween costume, Mr. Non-Trinitarian.
Upvote
0
So ... you're busy making distinctions between the wheat and the tares, ... despite Jesus' command ?
Once again, ... why don't you enlighten us regarding what you expect to be seeing ... ?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,198
- 9,967
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Is this wise to ask when one's interlocutor, supposedly a Christian, reflects many of the same rudimentary attitudes and conceptual lines of thought as a person like @Nihilist Virus?
Upvote
0
Since you ask - you did ask, didn't you? - as with many such doctrines I am neither a "Trinitarian" nor a "non-Trinitarian." I neither "believe" nor "disbelieve" the doctrine. It's a completely negotiated doctrine, with the final creedal statement far more attributable to political power and intrigue than to biblical support or theological reasoning. It has scant support in the Bible (please, don't start citing your pet verses), which seems curious indeed for a doctrine that so many regard as ESSENTIAL. It is, moreover, largely unintelligible and incomprehensible, which is why the typical statement of faith is "I don't understand it, of course - it's one of those transcendent mysteries, dude - but, yeah, I certainly believe it because you gotta believe it to be a Christian, don't you?"
At one time, I waded through several serious histories of the doctrine. I am probably one of the few people here who actually watched all 12 parts of William Lane Craig's "Defenders" series on the Trinity and its historical competitors. I recall one book in particular, not by a Jehovah's Witness, that I felt absolutely demolished the standard formulation of the doctrine on both biblical and historical grounds and - gasp! - arrived at precisely the JW's position (basically Arianism). (Possibly a shock to Trinitarians might be Craig's position that the person we call the Father - or the Holy Spirit, for that matter - could have incarnated as the Son, the person we call the Son could have stayed upstairs as the Father, etc. - i.e., Jesus is the Son only because He is the one who incarnated as such. Possibly another shock might be learning that after Arianism was condemned and the Trinity adopted as the official position, the official position briefly reverted to Arianism before Trinitarianism finally prevailed. As one bishop said at the time, "We all once again became followers of Arian overnight!)
I don't pretend to believe things that I don't regard as essentials and/or that are incapable of human understanding anyway. Does it make God happy if I say "Yeah, baby, I'm a Trinitarian and a faithful Packers fan too!" I don't think so. I accept that the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus were sufficient for God's salvific purposes regardless of whether Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, the Firstborn of Creation, or "the Son" in some other sense. Accepting THAT is the essential. The rest is "Christianity," often at its worst.
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,198
- 9,967
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I guess you also don't regard as essential the adherence to various site rules and the fact that your Nietzschean underwear is showing, then, either.
And you can save your René Girard’ "innocent scape-goat" diatribe for another place and time ...
Upvote
0
I was humoring you with my reference to tares, which simply mirrored your post. You DO realize, I hope, that in the parable the tares are the "sons of the evil one," not "misguided Christians." See Matthew 13:36-43.
I am certainly not suggesting that "Christianity" comprises "sons of the evil one." I am suggesting it comprises a substantial portion of folks who by some strange mental gymnastics have convinced themselves that they are doing God's work but are in fact consumed by ambition, greed and lust and a very, very large segment of folks who sincerely but perhaps mindlessly think they are on the path Jesus described but are in fact about as far from it as they could get.
How many (if any) are actually "sons of the evil one" (tares) and how many are simply misguided Christians (but still wheat) isn't my concern. Even if none are "sons of the evil one," I simply choose not to be part of their "Christianity."
It's above my pay grade - way above it - to presume to enlighten you. If I attempted that, moreover, I would be setting myself up as something I don't purport to be. The red-letter portions of any red-letter NT should be sufficient to enlighten anyone, although the spectacle of "Christianity" suggests they aren't.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Now don't get your robe in a twist there, Obi Wan, you might accidentally shoot yourself in the foot with your light saber.
Call me silly, but I might have thought that your references to "troll," "supposedly a Christian," "Nihilist Virus" and "Nietzschean underwear" were far closer to the line of what the site regards as unacceptable than anything I have said (even if I have no idea what the latter two are supposed to mean).
But please, if you think I have run afoul of the site rules, either point out the violations or report them. I think I've been remarkably patient and genial under the circumstances, but perhaps I am wrong.
Anyway, when a thread reaches the point of people coming seriously upset, it's certainly time for me to depart and probably time for the administrators to lock it up.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
