Not just wrong, but bad

[MWM958]

Charles Bronson > Chuck Norris

the truth

mods, please get this guy.

[Sparko]

mods, please get this guy.

we would but being a moron isn't against our rules. unfortunately.

[Darfius]

And so would you, like your Jesus-friend, cast a legion of demons into us informed and non-believing swine, and have us all run off a cliff to our deaths?

Though, like the prodigal son, you have chosen to be among the swine, I, like Christ, hope and pray that you will one day return to your Father.

[Kane]

Though, like the prodigal son, you have chosen to be among the swine, I, like Christ, hope and pray that you will one day return to your Father.

So, no. Well, that's good to know. I would've had to conclude that you'd be a dramatically rotten person had you said 'yes'.

Nevertheless, I do wonder at the difficulty caused by calling willing non-believers 'swine' when it is Christians who are charged to keep guard over their tongues, and not insult others lest they insult God, the Father (Jas. 3:9-12)?

You see, it would seem to me that because people are people, and just people, that your god would love them by virtue of that fact alone. Yet, it seems to me that you are advocating the notion that unless a person append 'Christian' to their name, like they would MD or B.A. or Ph.D, they are no longer a person; they are a swine.

Carrying Jas. 3:9-12 over to this point, I wonder how your god enjoys your description of his prodigals as 'swine'? Do you think he may just be a tad insulted that you've deigned to call his imago dei swine?

Just a thought.

[phaedrus]

So, no. Well, that's good to know. I would've had to conclude that you'd be a dramatically rotten person had you said 'yes'.

Nevertheless, I do wonder at the difficulty caused by calling willing non-believers 'swine' when it is Christians who are charged to keep guard over their tongues, and not insult others lest they insult God, the Father (Jas. 3:9-12)?

You see, it would seem to me that because people are people, and just people, that your god would love them by virtue of that fact alone. Yet, it seems to me that you are advocating the notion that unless a person append 'Christian' to their name, like they would MD or B.A. or Ph.D, they are no longer a person; they are a swine.

Carrying Jas. 3:9-12 over to this point, I wonder how your god enjoys your description of his prodigals as 'swine'? Do you think he may just be a tad insulted that you've deigned to call his imago dei swine?

Just a thought.

Good points here. I find it hard to discriminate between 'willing' and 'non-willing' non believers. It is my experience that most people believe what they think is right. Their actions may not be in concert with their beliefs sometimes.

I personally would find it very hard to believe X was true and still deliberately will myself to disbelieve X. I think will flows out of our beliefs rather than the other way around.

[Darfius]

So, no. Well, that's good to know. I would've had to conclude that you'd be a dramatically rotten person had you said 'yes'.

Nevertheless, I do wonder at the difficulty caused by calling willing non-believers 'swine' when it is Christians who are charged to keep guard over their tongues, and not insult others lest they insult God, the Father (Jas. 3:9-12)?

You see, it would seem to me that because people are people, and just people, that your god would love them by virtue of that fact alone. Yet, it seems to me that you are advocating the notion that unless a person append 'Christian' to their name, like they would MD or B.A. or Ph.D, they are no longer a person; they are a swine.

Carrying Jas. 3:9-12 over to this point, I wonder how your god enjoys your description of his prodigals as 'swine'? Do you think he may just be a tad insulted that you've deigned to call his imago dei swine?

Just a thought.

Matthew 7:6

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

As you can see, I am but following my Lord's example when I call those who reject the Gospel swine.

"Cursing" a man has to do with condemning him beyond the reach of one's forgiveness--or God's, not with calling him what he indeed is. As Christians, we are called upon to bless men (that is, fervently hope good for them), not curse. Part of blessing a man is first having an accurate view of what and who he is.

[Darfius]

Good points here. I find it hard to discriminate between 'willing' and 'non-willing' non believers. It is my experience that most people believe what they think is right. Their actions may not be in concert with their beliefs sometimes.

I personally would find it very hard to believe X was true and still deliberately will myself to disbelieve X. I think will flows out of our beliefs rather than the other way around.

Socrates said that the more he learned, the more he realized he did not know. Most people do not have more than a shallow understanding of themselves and the world around them and therefore are to blame that their conception of "what they think is right" is not higher and wider than it is. That is to say that those who do not actively seek the truth will not find it and are to blame for not doing so. "If you knew my Father, you would know Me."

You did not address the remaining points in my other post as you said you would, phaedrus.

[phaedrus]

Socrates said that the more he learned, the more he realized he did not know. Most people do not have more than a shallow understanding of themselves and the world around them and therefore are to blame that their conception of "what they think is right" is not higher and wider than it is. That is to say that those who do not actively seek the truth will not find it and are to blame for not doing so. "If you knew my Father, you would know Me."

You did not address the remaining points in my other post as you said you would, phaedrus.

Sorry. Life intervened.

I don't see any purpose in giving you my criteria of why I think I was a Christian. You don't think I was. I can live with that. I suspect that conversation will go along the lines of you trying to prove from anything I say that I wasn't a Christian. I just don't think it's profitable for either of us.

I can't give you a yes or no answer to the question 'Do I believe in good and evil.' They are very loaded terms. I can say that my notion of good and evil and their origins and dimensions are probably quite different to yours.

re speaking the truth in love and your explanation about it only applying between believers, does God not love me even if I am yet a sinner? As a Christian, can you still love me even though I am yet a sinner? If so, and you want to communicate truth to me, isn't it necessary that it MUST be the truth in love according to your beliefs? If I've got this wrong feel free to correct me.

As to why I rejected Christianity as the most accurate description of reality, the process I went through was quite drawn out . I think quick exchanges on the internet can't really do justice to that. I imagine you'll think I'm avoiding the issue, but it relates to something I've set myself as a goal: I have often been very easily pushed into a confrontational, less than enlightened approach in the past when discussing some of these issues. It is of course my fault that I can react this way. Part of my current practice is to try very hard to relate to people here with posts in which I try to deal with content in a respectful, mature way. I'm not that concerned with winning or losing debates, or proving anyone wrong. I just want to explore some issues that interest me. I guess if I don't answer questions as expansively as you'd like I hope you'll understand that it is my version of 'seeking after righteousness'.

[shunyadragon]

Socrates said that the more he learned, the more he realized he did not know. Most people do not have more than a shallow understanding of themselves and the world around them and therefore are to blame that their conception of "what they think is right" is not higher and wider than it is. That is to say that those who do not actively seek the truth will not find it and are to blame for not doing so. "If you knew my Father, you would know Me."

You did not address the remaining points in my other post as you said you would, phaedrus.

Actually many would consider this the primary problem white Christianity. It is a shallow limited ancient understanding of themselves and the world around them clinging to an ancient world view of the past, and therefore are to blame that their conception of "what they think is right" is not higher and wider than it is. That is to say that those who do not actively seek the truth will not find it and are to blame for not doing so.

[nightbringer]

I am an ex-Christian. From the age of 25 to 45 I was a devout, active and convinced Christian. Now I'm not. (For some Christians, this is immediately impossible and I could not have been a 'real' Christian to begin with. I'm hoping we can put aside that conversation for the time being.) For one reason and another, I now think my heartfelt conviction was mistaken.

The difficulty for me comes in discussions with some people. Unlike other issues where they might think I was simply wrong, now I am not ONLY wrong but morally suspect. I am told I 'rejected' God. I am told that their particular view of God is so obvious that I must be deliberately, consciously denying it. I am told that I have nefarious motives for no longer thinking Christianity gives an accurate view of reality. I examine myself as thoroughly as I can but I cannot find a trace of these motives that are often ascribed to me.

If this is the way I am regarded, it is hardly surprising that I find many attempts at apologetics or evangelism to be patronising or insulting. How can we enter into true dialogue without respect for the honesty and integrity with which people who disagree with us hold their views?

Why can't we believe that people are just wrong, rather than intentionally, and with malice, rejecting our views?

This is an interesting issue to discuss. I tend to judge matters on a case by case basis. There are certainly some users on here that I think are influenced to atheism by their emotions more than their intellect. Others I would consider as having more honest disbelief. I certainly think as a Christian you can be honestly dissuaded of your Christianity. That's not to say I think Christianity is in a poor position intellectually ... but it's certainly possible to be in a position where it seems as such.

[yo lunch]

You obviously do not understand the True List™ because it cannot be wrong by definition. It is True. ...and it is a List.

To say the True List is wrong is like saying Chuck Norris cannot kick your butt.

Many people can beat Norris! Therefore,by your own standards, your list is not true!

[yo lunch]

I would expect Christianity to be offensive to unbelievers because it labels all humans as wretched sinners that are lost and are in need of salvation. From a christian perspective the unbeliever is not just wrong but their unbelief is a consequence of their wicked heart. The unbeliever does not wish to accept they reason blindly and that they stand guilty before their holy God.

This does not mean the believer is not also wicked by nature, but they have realised this fact and by Gods grace they have cried out for Christ's salvation and repented of their sins.

Christians should not go out their way to be rude but some tension is expected during discussions on a board like this.

It is the same myopic thinking that has us in a couple of wars now! Islam means submission and they think that they have God on their side when they kill us!

[yo lunch]

Chuck Norris can kick your butt with both hands tied behind his back to his feet, while wearing a blind fold, chewing gum, and being shot at by 50 ninjas with poison blowguns.

The True List is True. You can see if you go to the thread and post there. I linked it in my first post about it.

Only in the movies, Pal! I bet he would not last five minutes in an Ultimate Fighting ring!

[Kane]

Matthew 7:6

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

As you can see, I am but following my Lord's example when I call those who reject the Gospel swine.

"Cursing" a man has to do with condemning him beyond the reach of one's forgiveness--or God's, not with calling him what he indeed is. As Christians, we are called upon to bless men (that is, fervently hope good for them), not curse. Part of blessing a man is first having an accurate view of what and who he is.

Right, so if we go by your logic then it's alright for us non-believers to follow after Hitchens's lead and call you Christians all manner of nasty epithets? Not that non-believers use Hitchens as a deific figure, but he is charismatic, just like your Jesus. So why not extend the courtesy, hey? Why not start calling Christians "perfidious dimwits"?

Ah, but you have divine revelation to back your warrant for calling non-Christians "swine". Your god said it, so because you follow his example, and want to be more like him, you feel entitled to rob human beings of their dignity by refusing to acknowledge the imago dei which your 66/73 manuscripts tell you is true of all people. Instead, you opt to call them "swine" because if it was alright for your god to do it (which is an interesting contradiction in itself) then it must be alright for you, a 2000-year removed perfidious dimwit to do the same.

Nice try.

[Sparko]

Many people can beat Norris! Therefore,by your own standards, your list is not true!

ECREE!