Hating Christians, what's the root cause (2)

[Soul_Golem]

That is typically believed by Christians where I live. Literalists are a fringe minority here, and are almost universally regarded as more than a little batty.

I highly doubt that is actually so. You probably just haven't been in enough churches to know what is really believed. There are lots of people who believe in the literal interpretation. If you have a Catholic church near you, you are looking at it. Calling people batty is a sign of anger. Are you angry at people because of what they believe? Because, that is not going to float your ship in this world that believes just about anything and everything.

 

[sidhe]

I highly doubt that is actually so. You probably just haven't been in enough churches to know what is really believed. There are lots of people who believe in the literal interpretation. If you have a Catholic church near you, you are looking at it. Calling people batty is a sign of anger. Are you angry at people because of what they believe? Because, that is not going to float your ship in this world that believes just about anything and everything.

Nah, JTB's in Germany. Biblical literalism is largely an American oddity.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Nah, JTB's in Germany. Biblical literalism is largely an American oddity.

What is Biblical literalism?

If the Bible is to be edited and altered everytime someone wants to violate the teachings of the Apostles or Christ Jesus, aren't the editors anti-Christian literalists?

 

[WatersMoon110]

What is Biblical literalism?

The belief that the complete Bible is literally true.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The belief that the complete Bible is literally true.

Or more precisely: a naive reading of the Bible that's totally divorced from historical context, an understanding of metaphor, a grasp of the nature of myth, or just about any sense of subtlety.

Literalists tend to be people who believe that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, that there was a literal, global flood in spite of all evidence to the contrary, etc.pp.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Or more precisely: a naive reading of the Bible that's totally divorced from historical context, an understanding of metaphor, a grasp of the nature of myth, or just about any sense of subtlety.

Literalists tend to be people who believe that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, that there was a literal, global flood in spite of all evidence to the contrary, etc.pp.

I see you get your research info from MSNBC and HBO.

Watch this if you have some time: www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com

On October 3rd of 2007 in Birmingham, Alabama, Professor Richard Dawkins and his Oxford University colleague Dr. John Lennox engaged in a lively debate over what is arguably the most critical question of our time: the existence of God. The debate centered on Dawkins' views as expressed in his best-seller, The God Delusion, and their validity over and against the Christian faith. Both presenters agreed to the format and topics of discussion.

Thatz n wun uv dem dar beyebul teeechin skuulz n thu South.

n u say South weth preyed u unnnerstan me?

yu unerstan me boy?

u beddur dam-wul unnerstan me.

oar all kik ur gawd . . .

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I see you get your research info from MSNBC and HBO.

No. My experience of literalists is mostly based on my encounters with people like you, on this very forum.
That, and hearing about absurdities like the "Creation Museum".

 

[Beanieboy]

My problem with literalists is that it is more of a worship of the Bible, than God.
It also causes a lot of problems:
Was Jesus a door? He said, "Behold, I am a door." He doesn't say that he is LIKE a door, but a door.
Jesus said that we were to forgive 70x7. For the literalist, that is exactly 490 times.

And in so, totally loses the meaning.

The idea that God no longer talks to us, reveals daily to us, puts God in a box.
It cuts off communication with God, ignores communication from God, and makes the Bible ironically an idol to be worshipped.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

My problem with literalists is that it is more of a worship of the Bible, than God.

Without a playbook it's all just chaos. That's a secular game.

It also causes a lot of problems:
Was Jesus a door? He said, "Behold, I am a door." He doesn't say that he is LIKE a door, but a door.

Jesus said he used parables for a reason.

Jesus said that we were to forgive 70x7. For the literalist, that is exactly 490 times.

I'm OK with that one.

And in so, totally loses the meaning.

Gee ya think? I guess the Bible takes somoe intelligence to understand soem parts of it huh?

The idea that God no longer talks to us, reveals daily to us, puts God in a box.

Christians don't have a God in a box. That would be the Darwin version.

It cuts off communication with God, ignores communication from God, and makes the Bible ironically an idol to be worshipped.

Jesus was an absolutist about how to get to ultimate destination. Care to metaphorize that?

 

[Beanieboy]

Jesus was an absolutist about how to get to ultimate destination. Care to metaphorize that?

If one confesses Christ with his mouth, but does not live it as his heart, gloats that he is saved, prides himself in it like an accomplishment of his own doing, and rejoices in the unsaved lost to hell, then one may think he "will" go to heaven, but "the Kingdom is within", within us, now, within our hearts.

Christ leaves the 99 to save the one, doesn't say, "ha ha! Good riddance!" He doesn't hold a grudge for the Prodigal son, but welcomes him in rejoicing, not condemnation, shame, or arrogance. So, it is easy to say, "Look at me! I'm a Christian! I'm holier than you are - yeah I am!"

That was way of the Pharisees. "Not everyone who says to me on the day, "Lord, lord"... It's not about saying.

But "no one comes to the Father but by me" - by Living Christ, living his ways, forgiving others, humbling himself before others, being a servant, putting one's ego aside to help another in humility. It's about giving others hope, making life better, making the world kinder, and happier, and inspiring others to do likewise.

 

[Beanieboy]

Without a playbook it's all just chaos. That's a secular game.

Maybe that is why we differ so much. You look at the Bible as a law book, one to condemn this person and that each day here at cf. You use the Bible as a weapon against others. Rarely have I seen posts of inspiration, comfort, insight, forgiveness, or rejoicing, but rather, commands that other people repent, mostly, to you.

I view the Bible as an inspiration to overcoming the human condition to prepare one for a higher divinity, prepared to leave my ego, my hostility, my bitterness, my vengeful nature, at the door to enter the kingdom, and live otherwise. And I continue, with God's help, to starve that part of me, making it weaker each day, to realize my true Buddha self, the true soul whom God created.

Christ taught that if one loved God with their whole heart, and loved their neighbor as themselves, all the laws would be fulfilled. They wouldn't search as Pharisees, lawyers, looking for a loophole, but rather, act in love. It's that simple of a message. I'm unclear why you are so insistent to make it more complicated, unless you are trying to justify something that you know in your heart isn't right.

It is written on our heart. That's scriptural, and if one has to run to the bible to find out, if it is wrong to harrass someone, bully someone, steal from someone, gossip about someone, kill someone, or lie to someone, or wants to know when it is ok, looking for loopholes in the bible using literal interpretation, then one is simply ignoring what is on their heart, has dulled the voice of God in their own disobedience.

 

[Soul_Golem]

Nah, JTB's in Germany. Biblical literalism is largely an American oddity.

What is JTB?

No, interpreting the Bible literally is not an American oddity, nor is it done very much by anyone I know myself personally here in America. It transcends culture, and I quite frankly have gotten used to seeing where people do it. Personally, I don't listen to it anymore. I don't think that any mortal finite human can even begin to create an infallible, inerrant bible.

Man is evil. That is about all you can believe.

God is good.

Does God save a man from his own evil?

 

[Soul_Golem]

And just to be clear, I have no problem with you. I was merely trying to provide some context. I don't believe PC_F (or any other human) is the ultimate arbiter of who is Christian (much less what the Bible says), despite how much some here appear to believe that only they understand correctly.

I agree no human is endowed to define God.

I don't know PC_F or what he/she believes well enough to say anything there.

 

[pantless rationalist]

What is JTB?

Not "what?" but "who?": Jane_the_Bane.

 

[pantless rationalist]

I just think it is pure hate to teach children and to promote to children, to engage in sex acts when they have know clue what sexuality even is. When a progress/the usual suspects, teach little children about two princes that desire homosexual sex, this is imprinting on and into their mids that gay sex is something they should try. Just exactly the same as teaching a child about the story of romance between a prince and his princess.

So fairy tales are bad now? I don't remember "Sleeping Beauty" ever making me want to have sex with anyone. I don't know about you, but I can't see how access to more information is a bad thing.

GLBT's and progressives know exactly what they are doing with and to "impressionable minds," as this is why secularists demand to teach only secularism in our school systems.

Privately funded schools can teach whatever they like. Public schools, on the other hand, are funded by the (secular) government. As such, there is no reason why they should teach secularly. Any religion taught in a public school shouldn't be a place to proselytize or preach for any one religion, but should be taught objectively.

As a side note, "secularism" isn't strictly an ideology as you seem to believe. Most commonly, and in the case of the public school system, it is simply a state divorced from any and all religious influence.

I could go on about your comment regarding teaching to "impressionable minds", but that is a topic for a whole other thread. Who knows? I might even start one up if I have the time later.

 

[Soul_Golem]

So fairy tales are bad now? I don't remember "Sleeping Beauty" ever making me want to have sex with anyone. I don't know about you, but I can't see how access to more information is a bad thing.

Hmmm...so "access to more information" is what?

I think access to disinformation is more like it.

I don't worry though. We live in an Information Age, and so naturally the truth is more appealing than the lies. Homosexuality is nothing but a packaged set of lies. If you have ever conversed extensively with a homosexual you will hear crap like:

1) Engaging in a homosexual act does not necessarily mean you are gay.

2) Homosexuality is inherit. In that it is basically natural.

3) Heterosexual men like to watch women engage other women, so they have a homosexual disposition.

4) There is a difference between sex and gender. Heh, actually heard that from heterosexuals seeking to be politically correct also.

Anyways, I don't actually know or have heard of any teachers (no matter what they think) brave enough to teach two princes marrying each other instead of the princess. I think the homosexuality issues, like most liberal issues, is a distraction.

The real issue is whether or not a private education is going to be better than sending your kid to a public school.

I don't know about you, but as someone who pursues a lot of college, I would never step foot in a public or government funded college. For my kids it will be the same, public education is more interested in collecting tax money than it is about teaching kids how to have skills and pay their bills.

 

[rambot]

I don't know about you, but as someone who pursues a lot of college

I'm sorry but could you explain what you mean by "a lot of college"?

Homosexuality is nothing but a packaged set of lies.

How can innate sexual attraction be a set of lies, packaged or not?
That's like saying "redheads are all cursed" or "bow-leggedness is a sham".

For my kids it will be the same, public education is more interested in collecting tax money than it is about teaching kids how to have skills and pay their bills.

Be careful. The public school systems around the world (and there are MANY) have provided some astoundingly bright adults.

If you have ever conversed extensively with a homosexual you will hear crap like:

1) Engaging in a homosexual act does not necessarily mean you are gay.

2) Homosexuality is inherit. In that it is basically natural.

3) Heterosexual men like to watch women engage other women, so they have a homosexual disposition.

4) There is a difference between sex and gender. Heh, actually heard that from heterosexuals seeking to be politically correct also.

When I showed this to my homosexual friend, he minced right out the door.
But in all honesty, they are correct.

1) Gay is a sexual orientation.

2) If you mean that homosexuality was inherited or inheritable, there is certainly data to suggest that (there is physiological evidence as well). As for it's being "natural", I wonder if you know how many species of animals participate in gay sex.

3) That is a bit weird to say, but certainly the irony of that statement could be seen.

5) There IS a difference between sex and gender. You may not have known about the difference but it IS there.

Look at Webster's definitions:
Gender:
the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Sex:
either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures

And both those words are from the 14th century, so that difference is not a new one.


As a teacher, I have to say that it is the parents MORE THAN THE TEACHER that will make or break the success of a child's experience in school.

 

[Soul_Golem]

I'm sorry but could you explain what you mean by "a lot of college"?

How can innate sexual attraction be a set of lies, packaged or not?
That's like saying "redheads are all cursed" or "bow-leggedness is a sham".


Be careful. The public school systems around the world (and there are MANY) have provided some astoundingly bright adults.

When I showed this to my homosexual friend, he minced right out the door.
But in all honesty, they are correct.

1) Gay is a sexual orientation.

2) If you mean that homosexuality was inherited or inheritable, there is certainly data to suggest that (there is physiological evidence as well). As for it's being "natural", I wonder if you know how many species of animals participate in gay sex.

3) That is a bit weird to say, but certainly the irony of that statement could be seen.

5) There IS a difference between sex and gender. You may not have known about the difference but it IS there.

Look at Webster's definitions:
Gender:
the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Sex:
either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures

And both those words are from the 14th century, so that difference is not a new one.


As a teacher, I have to say that it is the parents MORE THAN THE TEACHER that will make or break the success of a child's experience in school.

What I mean by a lot of college is I am an honor student, and have always been, and I have attended various universities.

Evil is innate. Where is the intercourse in homosexuality? Homosexuality shouldn't even be using the word intercourse, it defies the actuality of what they are doing. They are not really engaging in intercourse, but it is more like they are engaging in mutual masturbation rather than having sex. If you comprehend that.

I know there are bright individuals who came out of public schools, I was one of them. I went to a public school before college, and I am a genius. LOL...no modesty here.

As far as your homosexual friend goes, I am sorry to hear his/her reaction, but I don't get that reaction when I say it to a homosexual in person like I do on the Internet, and they are usually more receptive to my arguments in person. I have changed the minds of several homosexuals and they are homosexuals no more. I don't want to offend anyone, just want to be real straight and to the point, because that is when people have to stop and think.

As far as the Webster definition, I don't care what it says. Many people think just because it is put in writing it is true, but then I can say anything I want and click the mouse and LOL watch it become real. But, the way I read it makes sense to me in other ways than you seem to be comprehending it.

 

[Veyrlian]

Hmmm...so "access to more information" is what?

I think access to disinformation is more like it.

I don't worry though. We live in an Information Age, and so naturally the truth is more appealing than the lies. Homosexuality is nothing but a packaged set of lies. If you have ever conversed extensively with a homosexual you will hear crap like:

1) Engaging in a homosexual act does not necessarily mean you are gay.

2) Homosexuality is inherit. In that it is basically natural.

3) Heterosexual men like to watch women engage other women, so they have a homosexual disposition.

4) There is a difference between sex and gender. Heh, actually heard that from heterosexuals seeking to be politically correct also.

Anyways, I don't actually know or have heard of any teachers (no matter what they think) brave enough to teach two princes marrying each other instead of the princess. I think the homosexuality issues, like most liberal issues, is a distraction.

The real issue is whether or not a private education is going to be better than sending your kid to a public school.

I don't know about you, but as someone who pursues a lot of college, I would never step foot in a public or government funded college. For my kids it will be the same, public education is more interested in collecting tax money than it is about teaching kids how to have skills and pay their bills.

Wow. I didn't know there was this much crap in the world.

 

[Beanieboy]

When discussing homosexuality, someone always focuses on the sex, but when talking about heterosexuality, one always seems to focus on the hetero.

There is a lot more to my relationship that sex.
I also think that heterosexuals don't only have sex, and only intercourse sex, not oral, anal, or masturbation, and that only when they are trying to have babies, and beyond that, don't.

I also don't think that people marry simply for sex. It is a part, and important part, but only a part. You aren't having sex for the other 23 3/4 hours.