Well, the NB bigot thread got shut down with some questions being answered, and some not being answered.
I respect WTH for owning up to his comments. That takes a pair that many today don't have, or at least will not display publicly.
However, his comment at Hotair was:
You don’t have to be as deranged as Larry here to know a truth!
Mormonism IS nothing but a fake religion created by a con man. Not that
Larry was right about everything he said, but he’s right that a con man
crated a fake religion out of his rear-end, for sure.There is nothing
“bigoted” about speak that truth.
Since religion is based on theology I would like to know what religions Mr. Huston considers real, and not fake.
Also, in the comment and in the NB bigot thread WTH didn't link to anything that stated J. Smith as a con man, I would like a link to it.
As an athiest, I have no god in this fight. If J. Smith was a con man I would like some proof.
I am begging, please, please educate me.
Comments Policy
Faith-based initiative can
December 17, 2007 - 19:21 ET by AvatarFaith-based initiative can neither be proven or disproven i suppose.
I think it's more likely that he feels, as I do, that Mormonism should not be confused with Christianity, as they are miles apart. I think that's the danger that a lot of us worry about, is that Romney will try to pass off mormonism as Christianity, when they do not run in harmony with one another. So when the term fake religion is use, i see it more as 'fake christian' rather than fake religion. After all, doesn't everyone of each religion believe that all others are fake?
The Avatar
and of course the Mormon's
December 17, 2007 - 21:24 ET by TruthMongerand of course the Mormon's are concerned that WTH is trying to pass of his fake religion as Christianity:)...
and that's how this works...
it's everyone's word against everyone else's - and I'm a protestant Christian fundie saying this...
I vote Jesus, and I campaign for Him alot...
incidentally many suggest Jesus is not into religion either...
which suggests that "religion" is a man-made thing - a lame copy of God's way - like the crappy Japanese knock-off TV's from the 50's and 60's...
Exactly right, James, the brother of Jesus, wrote:
December 18, 2007 - 03:41 ET by Britcom"be ye seperate, and touch
December 18, 2007 - 18:44 ET by TruthMonger"be ye seperate, and touch not the unclean thing"
So far the Amish are WAY ahead of us on this...
Maybe someday we can catch up to them
Repent Sinners! Do not Crucify Christ Afresh
December 18, 2007 - 19:24 ET by Daniel BakerNo one is a Christian if they are not actively erasing unclean things from their life everyday. Flee Fornication and anything like unto it.
I have to nail Jesus back
January 14, 2008 - 14:31 ET by TruthMongerI have to nail Jesus back on the cross every day to cover my pathetic ministry antics - bummer...
The clergy mostly teach "religion" as being ceremony and rituals such as communion, baptism, etc - which are vital excercises to practice - but not enough - one also has to have a "personal relationship" with God and involve Him every day all day long - He is your best friend - there to help you all day long...
No one is a Christian if they are not actively erasing unclean..
December 20, 2007 - 18:21 ET by vrwc13Sounds like a faith of "works" to me.
My Christain faith tells me I am saved upon belief. Works come as a result.
My sympathy to those who continue to believe that you "work your way to heaven". Just how do you know when you have done "enough"?
v
Dittos vrwc
December 20, 2007 - 18:33 ET by Free StinkerDittos vrwc
So you have all the answers?
December 20, 2007 - 19:57 ET by well99Do you walk on water?You have a right to your beliefs as does everyone.One of the reasons I dont go to church is folks who are self appointed to make judgements on others.Some folks feel they speak for God.They dont at least in my belief.I think I'll let God make that decision for me when my time comes.
I'm beginning to think you
December 20, 2007 - 10:50 ET by dvdaughtryI'm beginning to think you are more of a legalist, than a fundamentalist.
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
libs call me fundie... i
December 20, 2007 - 13:05 ET by TruthMongerlibs call me fundie...
i call myself Christian...
you can call me what you like:)
I do not doubt your
December 20, 2007 - 13:11 ET by dvdaughtryI do not doubt your salvation, however, I do question your mindset.
Good thing God's grace covers us all.
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
fair enough - I question
December 20, 2007 - 13:29 ET by TruthMongerfair enough - I question yours too - so I have it coming:)
"we all have it coming, kid"
- clint eastwood, unforgiven
Fake religion
December 17, 2007 - 20:57 ET by Conservative VoiceIn my opinion, a fake religion is a religion where the founder's purpose was
to swindle the members for money or power but the founder didn't actually
believe what he was preaching. (One could argue that every religion is out for
money and power from its members....its the last part that is important, the
religion based on a purposeful lie).
People who are uncomfortable with the idea of a modern prophet can't just
ignore it an let it die, because a religion that is based with falsehoods will
die...like the religion ( I forget the name ) where all sex was evil, so the
members all died off. Not that the most popular religions are by default the
most correct, rather if isn't of God than it will wither...it may take a few
hundred years, but it will wither. So instead they have to make Joseph Smith
out as a swindler, a con man. There is no proof, but it doesn't stop them from
making the claim.
Fact is all religions consider their religion to be the true religion, and
thereby all other religions to be false. Its a matter of do we come together
united and see each other as Americans, or do we bicker and fight and war with
each other. Accusing founders of different religions to be con men, without
substantial proof that he knowingly told lies for money and power, doesn't show
the members respect. I am not Muslim, and though I don't believe in that
religion, I wouldn't call their prophet a con man ( even if you took out the
threat of being beheaded for saying such a thing ). Or the founder of Buddha.
As far as claiming which religion is Christian or not, I will leave it for
the members of that religion to define themselves. People don't consider my
religion to be Christian, because we don't believe in the trinity...we worship
one God, but see Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Ghost as three separate
beings, one in purpose. So because of this minor doctrine difference, we aren't
"Christian". Whatever...I think only one person can determine if they are
Christian or not...God, for he is the only one who knows what is a lie and what
isn't...and who lived their religion and who only uses their religion for social
gatherings or for show or for votes (i.e. Clinton) but don't really believe it.
He even said that there will be many who claim to be Christians, but he will
tell them he knows them not. So maybe we should reserve judgment, and instead
judge on things we do know versus what we speculate.
I think you captured kind
December 17, 2007 - 21:42 ET by AvatarI think you captured kind of what i think: to me, a fake religion is one that insists that it is within my power to attain heaven (or enlightenment in the case of the Buddhists). That's the major difference between christians (or believers if you will) and, say, muslims, methodists, buddhists, hindu, etc.
Muslims MUST do certain things in their life, methodists must follow, well, a method, to get to heaven, buddhism is bit of a different animal all together, and hinduism pretty much tells us that our actions dictate how we will be reincarnated. They are all works-based, christianity is not.
That's just how I see it.
The Avatar
Heaven
December 18, 2007 - 01:40 ET by BritcomMost people think that Jesus taught that good people are going to spend eternity in heaven. That is a pagan doctrine rooted in the Egyptian, Babylonian, and Roman cults and has no basis in the teachings of Jesus. If you read your Bible, you will discover that it says people who accept Christ will spend eternity here on Earth with Christ.
There are several very large and very old False religions that call themselves "Christian" but ignore the words of Christ. The test is, do their church doctrines and teachings match the doctrines and teachings in the Bible, if they don't, there you have a false religion. You can't have a Church that on the one hand says that the Bible is the written word of God, and then turn around a teach doctrine that conflicts with the Bible. That would be a fraud.
Unfortunately many Churches are in fact teaching a doctrine that conflicts with the Bible. Why do they continue to do this? Obviously it is not because they fear God, they use your fear of God to line their pockets, exalt their status, or increase their "temporal" (political) power over you. A true church would teach its doctrine directly from the Bible without adding or taking away from it, and would restrict its structure and governance to that which is described in the Bible.
and remember to factor in
December 18, 2007 - 18:46 ET by TruthMongerand remember to factor in our incredibly lame ability to interpret scripture in the fog of our sin and limited intellects...
it is still the blind leading the blind most of the time...
I reject that notion...
December 19, 2007 - 06:40 ET by BritcomThe Bible was given to us to better our lives. God did not give us the Bible for us to remain confused. If you cannot understand it, either your version is too old, or you are squinting too hard looking for a theology that is not there.
I read the NIV and I don't have any trouble understanding what it says. I could also write a book about all the things that some churches say are Biblical truths that cannot be found anywhere in the Bible.
If someone is telling you that the reason you should do, or not do, something is because the church has discovered some mystical doctrine from a 1000 years ago and it is too complicated for you to understand, then you can safely call that person a liar. There is no truth that is hidden and the Bible is the only book that you need to understand how to be a Christian. If you read a modern translation, you don't need to be a scholar to understand the rules Jesus wants you to live by. Don't fall into the trap of letting some "church authority" tell you what the Bible says.
There is no quick and easy shortcut to understanding the Bible, you have to actually read it. Once you read it, I have no doubt that you will agree that 80% of what most churches expect you to believe is not in there and they are ignoring 60% of what is in there. Jesus read the Bible and he taught from it. He didn't tell us to start ripping pages out of it. He expected us to follow it.
Have you any idea how shocked these churches will be when He arrives back on the Earth and decrees that the Ten Commandments be followed? How will the churches explain their failure to remain faithful? That is why the Bible tells us there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when He takes His place as ruler of the globe. There are lots of people who won't be happy to see Him.
I'm with Britcom on this
December 19, 2007 - 07:06 ET by tracheostomyI'm with Britcom on this one. 1 John 2:1 applies in that if the majority of believers just "wouldn't get it", then why did John write it to begin with? I think calling the Bible too confusing to bother is just an excuse to slack off and tempts one to chase after mysticism and personal revelation. And there are many spirits more than ready to give you that shiny-new personal revalation you're looking for, if you're frustrated and ignorant enough.
The Bible can be understood in complete context. This is where 2 Timothy 2:15 applies here as well (h/t to botg).
There's this old poem that goes something like. . .
In the OT the New is contained, and in the NT, the Old is explained; the OT has the New concealed, and in the New, the Old is revealed.
And then there's. . .
". . .and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
- 2 Peter 3:15-16
But there I go again, blah-blah-blah, who cares, it's only sacred scripture.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I also heartily agree with
December 20, 2007 - 10:49 ET by dvdaughtryI also heartily agree with Brit and Trach.
If anything, our fog comes from not studying history, customs, culture, and customs of the Biblical era.
My observations are people take the Scripture at face value, and that is not correct because the face value is only the tip of the iceberg.
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
happy to disagree with all
December 20, 2007 - 13:27 ET by TruthMongerhappy to disagree with all of you - i just can't rely that much upon my interpretations as they change significantly every year...
of course some things never change for me - Jesus is my savior, I am a sinner, I should immerse myself in prayer and scripture study, fellowship substantially with the church, be humble and loving, forgiving - judging with extreme care, sacrificing my blessings to help others in need instead of indulging myself...
after the first two i always crap out - you've seen my rantings here
I always try to remember that these are just my beliefs - they have not been "proven" to me - we can only take them on faith - that is all God offers at this point...
I just don't think you account for some of the simplest things - 20th century distortions of your interpretations, language (Jesus didn't speak NIV English), politics, your childhood baggage, your adult baggage, relationship baggage - I embrace DesCarte's conclusions on this topic - I think, therefore I am - and the rest that I "know" to "be true" is all just based on faith...
Forgive me for judging but your commentaries above must sound extremely arrogant to the Lord - that's how the spirit moves me anyway...
You presume I do not study the scriptures as much as you? So be it. I am a fundie. I believe the entire Bible literally - I read and pray on it every day....
Rabbi's can preach - the rest of us should spend most of our time listening and asking questions...
TM
December 20, 2007 - 13:38 ET by MrShyyour childhood baggage, your adult baggage, relationship baggage...
"Baggage".... there's a word I've never seen on this site before.
I've got baggage up the wazzoo, and I'm just entering my 40's... I don't want to get older or "live" anymore, because it seems each night I go to bed, I have yet more failings and disfunctional experiences I have to replay in my head. I can't imagine how confused and stressed out I'll be at 80! :p
ps: my apologies for not citing religion in this post, as I know that's the topic of this thread.
We bid a fond farewell to Professor Talking Points & Cheetos
I'm 43 - welcome to the
December 20, 2007 - 14:04 ET by TruthMongerI'm 43 - welcome to the baggage years my friend:)...
Jesus carries my baggage - he can take yours too if you like
baggage?
January 14, 2008 - 21:51 ET by botgbaggage? we ain't got no baggage!!
we don't need no stinkin baggage!!!
"how would i know? if i knew everything i'd run for God" ----crpl Klinger
Study
December 20, 2007 - 17:34 ET by BritcomI recommend you listen to Earl Nightingale's "The Strangest Secret in the World" In it he teaches us that "a man is... what he thinks about."
Link>>
BTW, I don't doubt that you study the Bible, my concern is that you may not be clearing your mind sufficiently of doctrines that are designed to confuse you as you read by utilizing the Devil's greatest weapon... doubt. Where questions arise, I have found that the Bible interprets itself if you study parallel scriptures (a chain reference Bible makes this a snap, e.g. the Scofield Study Bible) In studying the Bible, it is not enough to just read ... you must look for the wisdom that the Bible wants you to understand.
well I do share your
December 27, 2007 - 14:28 ET by TruthMongerwell I do share your concern for myself - this is my concern for you as well...
study study study - 1 hour individual Bible study with my pastor every other week right now along with study assignments of course...
TM
December 20, 2007 - 20:22 ET by botghappy to disagree with all of you - i just can't rely that much upon my interpretations as they change significantly every year ??????????
if you can't rely on your interpretations how can you disagree with anyone else?? "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." until then do you really have a message to share?
"how would i know? if i knew everything i'd run for God" ----crpl Klinger
...the way I work it is I
December 26, 2007 - 14:23 ET by TruthMonger...the way I work it is I disagree with myself routinely...
That's how I transformed from flaming lib athiest to right-wing fundie in the span of about 2 or 3 years...
TM
December 26, 2007 - 18:54 ET by botgsounds like your chasing your tail and everthing is fungible.
Before you can share truth you must know truth.
"how would i know? if i knew everything i'd run for God" ----crpl Klinger
That is true Botg, but I
December 27, 2007 - 10:29 ET by BinxlyThat is true Botg, but I think some things/truths cannot be known 110% by us as humans. God works in mysterious ways, and all TM is saying is that the only true 'clues' we have to the 'real answers' or truth, is in the bible. Because they are paraboles, it is also possible that we as humans may not be able to find all our answers in that book because paraboles can be read subjectively and differently from one person to another.
I think TM has a good thing going, even if we disagree on some issues, when he says he seeks to follow the word of God as stated in the Book and then wait for the day he returns home to the Lord in order to recieve his answers or 'the truth.'
Its like your tag says botg,
'If we knew everything, we'd run for God ourselves.'
well put binx - thank
December 27, 2007 - 14:30 ET by TruthMongerwell put binx - thank you:)
the truth is we don't have any answers right now - but God does - I can be a pointer, I can provide directions to the wizard of oz
It's just that you seem so
December 27, 2007 - 20:31 ET by botgcertain of your skepticism
"how would i know? if i knew everything i'd run for God" ----crpl Klinger
I'm not skeptical of my
December 28, 2007 - 12:50 ET by TruthMongerI'm not skeptical of my beliefs - just my ability to interpret and communicate fruitfully - I study the basics of communication alot and it's striking here on NB how we all struggle to communicate everday here...
I also fear that humility is sorely missing from many of us evangelicals...I've recently tried harder to practice more humility here about my Bible interpretations...
and now people react much better to Jesus with my current attitudes - and you can see my posts just two years ago if you like - I was pretty obnoxious here on NB back then - much different tone now - still the same core beliefs, however...
Jesus is the W,T and L...
I really just try to separate myself from Jesus - He is the way, I am a broken sinner - not much of a model for people to look up to - Jesus is the model - some of my fellow believers are much better models - I am not so good - maybe in a couple of small ways but largely not - I believe what I preach but struggle immensely with the practice...
But I feel like I can still point people to Jesus - as long as they understand I am not a great Christian model - there are many others in my community if they need local examples...
Quote: People don't consider
December 18, 2007 - 00:29 ET by tracheostomyQuote: People don't consider my religion to be Christian, because we don't believe in the trinity...we worship one God, but see Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Ghost as three separate beings, one in purpose. So because of this minor doctrine difference, we aren't "Christian". Whatever...
If you call that "minor", I would shudder to think what you think a "major doctrinal difference" would look like.
You don't get it CV. That ^^^ statement you made is like claiming the virgin Mary was a prostitute. You do not understand how inflammatory it is to literally pervert the very nature of a holy God. You are totally oblivious to how you blithely slander Him and then innocently wonder why all the fundies get so mad. Granted, 3/4 of the fundies have no idea why they get mad, but that doesn't mean there isn't a reason for it.
- Any religion that downplays or distorts the main attributes of God (namely, His omiscience, His omnipresence, and His omnipotence) worships a limited God. That is the anchor statement where all basic theology is tied. That is the one major above all majors.
- Therefore, a god with limits is clearly not the God of the Bible. I got you on the first point awhile ago with His foreknowledge, and now it's time for the second nail in the coffin.
- Only a triune God is capable of having the three attributes above. The opposite is also true. A God who is omiscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent will only and always form the triune relationship that is still ONE God. Anything else is either tritheism, modalism, or the classic LDS flip-flop between the two ("It is, but it isn't").
- The nature of the Trinity is briefly stated as God's perfect self-image (eikon in Greek), with whom He relates to perfectly and shares every attribute and thought of God. God and His perfect self-image then share an unbroken; perfect relationship that goes forth into all the universe as the perfect will, or logos, or spirit. Since God has always had a perfect self-image, this relationship with Himself and that faultless; unbroken spiritual union is eternal.
- More simply, a truly omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God without any limits whatsoever will know Himself so well that He would exist as an eternal reflection of Himself that agrees and shares his perfect will. That same will/relationship is unbroken as well, and carries out the Perfect Spirit of the Holy One and His Eikon unto Himself.
THEREFORE, YOU DO NOT KNOW HIM.
- Tritheism is already a long-established heresy, but the LDS will tell you that their bases are already covered, because they worship one God ("just because").
But take them to task on the many contradictions that result (such as the worshipping of Jesus in the Bible), and that's when they start chasing their tail. "Many gods exist, but we worship only one, but wait, we can explain that. . .hey, where are you going hater?"
CV, this is proof of a major; glaring theological contradiction that you have zero interest in resolving (i.e. your apathetic "whatever" statement).
That attitude is absolutely not the heart of "ask. . .seek. . .find."
It is not love of the Lord with all of your heart, mind, and soul.
You think there is nothing more to know about God other than an empty merit-based salvation and the rest is pure speculation. You have now seen a demonstration of the Triune God. You are now without an excuse.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Thank goodness most Americans
December 18, 2007 - 08:57 ET by RJdon't feel the need to self-aggrandize by denigrating the religion of others.
Even Huckabee, who is backed by many evangelicals, said it's not up to any of us to tell others whether or not they're Christian.
What's Huckabee base that
December 18, 2007 - 13:10 ET by tracheostomyWhat's Huckabee base that statement on, hmm? And as stated before, he's not my pastor and he's not my candidate.
I have my orders from elsewhere, and the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
It's not bigotry if I expect to be held to the same standard. Anyone here is always more than welcome to question my faith and put it to the test.
www.monergism.com
Take your best shot. Fair is fair. However, you RJ, simply cannot (or will not) distinguish between the varied definitions of judgement. With you, religious debate is some kind of crime.
1. Anyone can worship however they choose. No one here is forcing anyone to do otherwise.
2. This is a public forum. CV has a right to make public statements about his faith, just as I have the same right to voice my evaluations of his faith, philosophy, opinions, ideals, etc. every time he opens his mouth about it. . .making it all fair game once it's thrown into the public forum.
3. My arguments are not against him personally, but rather with the product he is advertising. His faith should hold up on its own merits, regardless of how he conducts his personal life. Get it?!??? I have no idea what position he holds in the church or even how active he is; that doesn't matter. I'm looking right past him and to the god he claims to know.
4. Common knowledge has it that Mormonism is nothing more than a persecuted Christian denomination with unique ceremonial practices. Am I not allowed to clarify otherwise???
5. Therefore, an expository point-by-point comparison between the two faiths is no crime. And an examination of the foundational major doctrines should not require a non-Mormon like yourself to defend it either.
6. The denigration of the religion of others started in Palmyra New York in 1820. It's past due to set the story straight. And as stated before, no one's being forced into a corner. I walk past quite a few denigrations to my faith all over the web. This is the one I've chosen to speak out on. This isn't a bullhorn; he can change the channel anytime, and I'm not physically obstructing him.
So get some perspective for a change.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
'With you, religious
December 19, 2007 - 12:05 ET by Binxly'With you, religious debate is some kind of crime.'
I don't think he feels that way persay. I just think not everyone wants a response to their sharing of their faith to be something as finger-wagging and more 'my faith is real and yours is not' talk. Again, like you said, you have the right to do that, but in that case, someone also has the right to tell you that *your* view is limited and that you assume that in your own admittedly flawed and sin-born mind, that you can somehow comprehend God's will perfectly and that all others with different views are wrong, and that this *does* make you somewhat of a religious elitist, maybe not quite a bigot.
The difference here being, when someone shares their point and its contrary to yours on this or any "God" issue, you tend to get easily riled up and take the conversation into an argumentative realm and it just devolves into a glorified 'pi$$ing contest' in which you and the opposing side start debating, more to argument, and breaks down finally with both your side and the other, shouting their beliefs in the face of the other while claiming both are damned in the eyes of the opposing side.
That is counter productive. I personally believe Jesus would rather we learn from another and be a peaceful society of multiple different followers of various religions and agnostics and athiests who helps each other and shares the common human trait of compassion for their fellow man, rather than a nation of die-hard, by-the-book christians who will shout down any dissenter and call it 'an attempt to save them.' Again though, this is my opinion, so feel free to shred it apart with your 'shock and awe,' fear-mongering view of right and wrong and who's religion is 'right' and whose is 'wrong.'
"glorified pi$$ing contest"
December 19, 2007 - 12:20 ET by RJIntentional or not, a funny pun, Binx :^)
And I especially like the last paragraph of your post.
reminds of the "body of
December 20, 2007 - 13:26 ET by TruthMongerreminds of the "body of Christ" concept - we are the "body" of Christ - some of us are the left hand and some of us are the right, some the ears, some the eyes - we all have different purposes - but one heart and mind - God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit - the body spends too much time beating itself up...
B: I don't think he feels
December 19, 2007 - 14:23 ET by tracheostomyB: I don't think he feels that way persay.
T: You haven't read all his posts then. He thinks my posts alone will lead to a future inquisition of some sort. Not only that, but to top it off, he then has the gall to call me irrational.
B: I just think not everyone wants a response to their sharing of their faith to be something as finger-wagging and more 'my faith is real and yours is not' talk.
T: The pain that is felt when I come along to kick the tires is merely the embarrassment of public exposure and a stung pride. You would much rather everyone had the opportunity to just state their beliefs, no matter how absurd, and everyone else to allow those statements to stand unresponded to. Everyone gets a turn now, "kum-by-yah" after all, they're all equally valid. Right?
That's an assumption that I will not let stand. Not only that, but every religion has their point of exclusion. So your scenario only works in pretense Binxly. But no, many say the point of exclusion is with Christianity only. Now where's the ignorance? Now where's the bias?
There's an easy solution to this without blaming the one that happens to notice and point out the discrepancies: Either shore up you own theology, or abandon it for a more solid one. You can't blame me for the unstable hill that you choose to plant your flag.
B: The difference here being, when someone shares their point and its contrary to yours on this or any "God" issue, you tend to get easily riled up and take the conversation into an argumentative realm and it just devolves into a glorified 'pi$$ing contest' in which you and the opposing side start debating, more to argument, and breaks down finally with both your side and the other, shouting their beliefs in the face of the other while claiming both are damned in the eyes of the opposing side.
T: Care to prove that? I think you have me confused with someone else. Your scenario up there is nothing more than a "because-I-said-so", "oh-yeah", "yeah." scenario. And by the way, I never-ever said anyone was "damned" seeing as how we're not dead yet.
B: I personally believe Jesus would rather we learn from another and be a peaceful society of multiple different followers of various religions and agnostics and athiests who helps each other and shares the common human trait of compassion for their fellow man, rather than a nation of die-hard, by-the-book christians who will shout down any dissenter and call it 'an attempt to save them.'
T: But it's not an attempt to save them. It is a defense of the claim that we both worship the same god. Again, I am not the fundie stereotype you wish I was.
Very rarely do I actually share the gospel plan of salvation here, as this entire site is it's own miniature "burned over district". No one really wants to learn from one another anyway. But they still attempt to pigeonhole me all the same.
This is partially the reason why I wish religious discussion were banned across the board. Someone wants to make some inane claim; associating my faith with theirs where none exists at all, and then when I point out the obvious exclusions that make the religion "sacred" they call me a bigot? A hater? And then others ascribe all kinds of other bizarre motives that don't match a whit of what I had written. What a bunch of crap!
And where do you get off speaking for Jesus anyway? Where did He ever say that??? Who is this particular Jesus you speak on behalf of?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
lol, trach!
December 19, 2007 - 14:32 ET by RJI said your enthusiasm for what you called "voluntary interrogations" about religion was only one step away from "voluntary inquisitions."
Nothing irrational about understanding that progression, trach. :^)
But there is something
December 20, 2007 - 07:14 ET by tracheostomyBut there is something irrational about:
1. Coining a phrase made of mutually contradictory terms.
2. Making bizarre predictions for an entire society based on one individual's opinion. Keep polishing your crystal ball, thyar.
3. Claiming understanding of a "progression" based on something you just made up (see#1).
4. Making fearful predictions about a cause that you don't even believe is valid to begin with.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
awwww, poor tracheostomy
December 20, 2007 - 08:59 ET by RJYou self-righteously scrutinize other religions, but don't like it when your own hardline religious attitudes are held up to scrutiny. Love the way it makes you squirm.
Hey, trach. YOU were the one who called for "voluntary" religious interrogations. Well, too damn bad if you don't like thinking about the very real possibility of the next step to "voluntary" religious inquisitions.
Historically, inquisitions frequently began with "voluntary" submission to an interrogation about having the "right" beliefs. I bet the good people who've suffered through other inquisitions thought "surely they won't go to the next step."
And, youdambetcha your bigoted attacks on the religions of others is something to be "feared" by decent people.
>>You self-righteously
December 20, 2007 - 10:00 ET by tracheostomy>>You self-righteously scrutinize other religions,
>>but don't like it when your own hardline religious
>>attitudes are held up to scrutiny.
Still waiting for that scrutiny, BTW. But it's far easier to go after the personality rather than the facts, huh?
>>Hey, trach. YOU were the one who called
>>for "voluntary" religious interrogations.
Two words: QUOTE ME!
>>Well, too damn bad if you don't like thinking
>>about the very real possibility of the next step
>>to "voluntary" religious inquisitions.
I can't believe you're now actually trying to propagate the silly term. If it's not truly voluntary, than where's the threat of force coming from? Sorry RJ, I left my halberd in my other pants LOL!!!
>>Historically, inquisitions frequently began with "voluntary"
>>submission to an interrogation about having the "right" beliefs.
This is one nice big red hat you've arbitrarily slapped on my head here. Thanks, I'm not even a theonomist, for pete's sake.
And he calls me paranoid. Wow.
>>I bet the good people who've suffered through
>>other inquisitions thought "surely they won't go to the next step."
Congratulations! You have just officially crossed the line into insinuation of action completely beyond my own ability, on a public forum, that would go against my own doctrine. Koo-Koo!!!
>>And, youdambetcha your bigoted attacks
>>on the religions of others is something to be "feared" by decent people.
Here we go again. Despite all my other demonstrated behaviors to the contrary, you'll mischaracterize my actions to suit your faux-bigot witch hunt. My record speaks for itself. . .if only someone bothered to check it.
But this has already been addressed on the other "bigot" threads. You have nothing RJ, and now you're down to parroting the bigot meme and now wild conspiracy theories of a new American theocracy based on a 15th century model.
Hehe, just. . .LOL wow, you'll say anything to save face, huh?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Well, THAT's interesting
December 20, 2007 - 13:39 ET by RJYour semi-hysterical outpouring is noted.
But regarding your shouted charge to "QUOTE ME!".....before I waste time digging around in this search-challenged site, tell me this: after nearly a week of discussing your introduction of the concept of voluntary religious interrogations....and whether or not it would lead to "voluntary religious inquisitions", are you now saying you didn't introduce it?
I'm saying, QUOTE ME! I
December 20, 2007 - 14:00 ET by tracheostomyI'm saying, QUOTE ME!
I could be wrong. I really do not remember asking for anyone at NB to volunteer for a religious interrogation, nor am I currently recruiting, LOL! Though I am disappointed that my questions are very rarely answered, they are never forced, because I don't have the power. Heck, I'm not even a mod.
One thing is for sure, I definitely didn't catch your veiled historical reference, seeing as how (a.) I'm not Roman Catholic, and (b.) I didn't think you'd stoop that low to make such an accusation.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
No, trach, you didn't "ask" anyone to volunteer.
December 20, 2007 - 14:32 ET by RJBut you did say that it was an "interrogation" and that it was "voluntary." Since we're discussing religion it naturally becomes "voluntary religious interrogation."
But, in spite of your jumping to conclusions, I haven't accused you of either being Roman Catholic or of planning to participate in an inquisition.
I'm not surprised though. When "inquisition" is mentioned, it's common for people to immediately think of the Spanish Inquisition, but there have been many other religious interrogations and inquisitions throught history. For example, the events leading up to the Salem Witch Trials come to mind.
>>But you did say that it
December 20, 2007 - 15:09 ET by tracheostomy>>But you did say that it was an "interrogation"
>>and that it was "voluntary."
:filing nails:
Still waiting on that quote, cite, link, whichever where I use those words in a sentence and in the manner you accuse, specifically calling for voluntary interrogations as you put it.
Or else you're desperately cherry-picking.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
And don't you have
December 20, 2007 - 15:18 ET by tracheostomyAnd don't you have something better to do RJ? This is getting asinine. Trust me, "me and my boys" are not coming to getcha or anything. M'kay?
So take your little "21st Century Spanish Inquisition" conspiracy theories elsewhere, and go talk politics or something.
Shoo.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
lol, trach
December 20, 2007 - 15:42 ET by RJAs I said before, it's your paranoid fantasy that I have accused you of a "21st Century Spanish Inquisition" conspiracy.
Something better to do? Unlike yourself? Thanks for your concern, trach, but I don't mind. ;^)
>>As I said before, it's
December 20, 2007 - 16:12 ET by tracheostomy>>As I said before, it's your paranoid fantasy
>>that I have accused you of a "21st Century
>>Spanish Inquisition" conspiracy.
Look, I'll demonstrate. It's called quotes RJ, watch closely.
RJ: I said your enthusiasm for what you called "voluntary interrogations" about religion was only one step away from "voluntary inquisitions."
Ahh. . .yes you did say that. You. Not me. The historical connection to the RCC was all yours as well, unless you're flip-flopping on one inflammatory word.
In that case then, the record would show that you're leading me on an inane historical guessing game. Why did you choose to resort to vague allusion and not simply come on out and honestly accuse me?
You're leaving an embarrassing paper trail that keeps getting longer.
RJ: Well, too damn bad if you don't like thinking about the very real possibility of the next step to "voluntary" religious inquisitions.
That's the other one (the next step to "gasp"!!! What?), right after you accused me of calling for NB volunteers to be interrogated. LOL. BTW, are you on dope or something? And where's that quote I asked for? It's getting late.
RJ: And, youdambetcha your bigoted attacks on the religions of others is something to be "feared" by decent people.
Emphasis mine. Damn, when did one blog member inspire so much fear, RJ? Does this fear of yours stem from. . .bigotry? Nah, not in my case of course. I guess I don't count. And if I'm just one person, isn't this an example of a paranoid reaction on your part?
This is really boring RJ. No, really. You're literally boring me to tears.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Hold on there Trach...
December 20, 2007 - 16:17 ET by Clear thinkerI think I was the one that wrote "21st Century
Spanish Inquisition". And from the sounds of it, alot of people misunderstood my post.
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
Maybe not on this
December 20, 2007 - 16:44 ET by tracheostomyMaybe not on this thread.
I used the phrase as a constructed term for what RJ was alluding to. See quotes and go on from there. It's pretty obvious what he's accusing me of, and he doesn't have a single thing to back it up with. I'm just a guy on a blog.
Perspective people, please.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Also, this sub-thread this
December 20, 2007 - 17:03 ET by tracheostomyAlso, this sub-thread is just another endless round-and-round red-herring "argument to the person", and I refuse to be trolled further for RJ's amusement. Bye.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Gosh, trach. You're losing it.
December 21, 2007 - 11:50 ET by RJIt's interesting to observe your religious narrow-mindedness overflow into language. The inquisition in Spain is the only one we're allowed to reference? lol!
As I said, that's YOUR paranoia at work, just as it's YOUR paranoia that claims I've accused you of plotting to create a new inquisiton. :^)
>>It's interesting to
December 21, 2007 - 12:06 ET by tracheostomy>>It's interesting to observe your religious
>>narrow-mindedness overflow into language.
Why is it interesting? Please provide an example of where my language expresses religious narrow-mindedness. Truth by it's definition is exclusive. If you believe in an absolute truth, then you are by nature an absolutist. Are you telling me that is a bad thing?
>>The inquisition in Spain is the only one we're allowed to reference? lol!
I didn't say that either. And I did ask that you clarify next time. And I did it nicely.
>>As I said, that's YOUR paranoia at work, just as it's
>YOUR paranoia that claims I've accused you of
>>plotting to create a new inquisiton. :^)
Does the smiley mean that was some kind of ironic joke, or did you mean that statement?
See, you're so vague and off-point that you strike me as someone who just wants to lash out at someone, based on comment's like "your kind" and "your boys".
On the one hand, I don't want to be so narrow-minded to assume the intent of your posts, but at the same time, you fail to clarify whenever I ask.
That's the tactic of a coward RJ.
You posts speak for themselves and you show a stark duplicity to boot. For example, you hate people who are vocally exclusive about their religious beliefs, especially those who only post (comparatively) gentle questions on one section of one conservative blog.
But at the same time, you shill for Ann Coulter. What's up with that? I own all her books, what about you? How is this not hypocritical behavior? Do you really want to follow me around to be made an example of?
Because I'd be more than happy to let you leave in peace. I don't troll you on the political threads.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
You can have this set, trach
December 21, 2007 - 12:12 ET by RJI've observed that you don't mind narrow posts (isn't THAT a tempting line?)....but I do. Thanks for playing. :^)
Oops, busted. I just
December 21, 2007 - 12:13 ET by tracheostomyOops, busted. I just noticed this is the same thread where I told myself (and others) that I refused to allow myself to be trolled, and here I am getting hooked into it again.
Congrats RJ, chalk one up for the tolerant.
I'm leaving it alone for sure this time, and double-checking when RJ calls me out.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I agree with that
December 20, 2007 - 10:41 ET by well99A old expression of mine is God save me from religious people.There is only one whose judgement really counts and no matter what others say it aint them.Your beliefs are your own and should be respected as you should respect others.Well satanist can go to hell but I think they want to anyways.Last time I went to a church I was wearing odd colored clothes and under a camo net.Then again we carry our own temple where ever we go.
...it's tough - we must
December 20, 2007 - 13:52 ET by TruthMonger...it's tough - we must judge every day - I am my brother's keeper - but true and correct judgement is a skill that requires omnipotence - which we don't have, yet God still calls us to judge each other on minor things...
Proceed with extreme humility and caution I say...
Of course what we always do is another thing...
Yes
December 20, 2007 - 15:49 ET by well99Maybe I should of clarified this.As far as me going to heaven/hell.That is not going to be decided by anyone on this earth that is mortal.Some people tell you dont do this or that you are a lost soul.Wrong answer.There is nothing wrong with spreading the word.It is wrong to try and force it on anyone.
OIF
December 19, 2007 - 19:07 ET by botg"As an athiest, I have no god in this fight" if you were a tseihta would you have no dog in the fight?
CV can correct me if i am wrong but i believe that Joseph Smith claimed that the reason he had to found his church was that all Christian denominations had become apostate. I don't believe that doctrine has ever been rescinded.
Also he claimed to have direct inspiration (thru gold plates and glasses?) of the correct Scripture. Some of that is word for word from the King James Bible, even passages which have since been found to have been mistranslated.
Even so i believe a greater percentage of Mormans 'walk the talk' than born againers do.
"how would i know? if i knew everything i'd run for God" ----crpl Klinger
BTW, I see this thread as a
December 18, 2007 - 00:31 ET by tracheostomyBTW, I see this thread as a re-opened version of the one that got locked down. I was hoping everyone here was smart enough not to bite. And here I am hip-deep in it myself.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Atheists
December 18, 2007 - 01:36 ET by BritcomAtheists do have a god. Whatever you sacrifice your time, or your money to, that is your god. Whatever you teach your children is the path to happiness, that is your religion. Even if you believe that nothing happens after you die, your life's work will have been a testament to your god. For some their god is mammon (wealth), for others their god is themselves (vanity), or power (domination), etc. But everyone has a god. For some of us our God is the Creator, the God of Abraham, the God of prophecy. The God who accurately tells us the events of the future from writings in the distant past. The God who has the power to heal the sick, and raise the dead to life again. The God who's wisdom is as reliable and as solid as the Earth itself.
Clarify
December 19, 2007 - 17:57 ET by UnsaneAtheists do have a god. If you are in the thrall of a personality cult, maybe...and even then, types like Stalin and Mao were ALL about worshipping God, as long as THEY were God.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
...everyone needs some sort
December 20, 2007 - 13:53 ET by TruthMonger...everyone needs some sort of God - we are designed that way by God...
You can choose the genuine Rolex or the cheap knock-offs...
What is a fake religion?
December 18, 2007 - 08:00 ET by Free StinkerWhat is a fake religion?
Something that does not correspond to the facts.
That doesn't really answer the question
December 18, 2007 - 08:22 ET by sarcasmoFaith is, by definition, beyond just "the facts." Everyone, myself included, has a deep faith that his or her nutty ideas are 100% right when it comes to the Creator. That's why we must have tolerance, and pay attention to guarding the right to freedom of speech in all forms, not just about religion. We haven't done too well lately...
The real question to ask is: "what religions are 'safe' for religious attacks." Mormons have been attacked recently, despite a faith that's no-nuttier than any of the various other religions out there, IMO. I've also seen the Wiccans attacked occasionally, even though (like the other faiths) the vast majority of Wiccans seem to just want to be left alone.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Sure it answers the
December 18, 2007 - 17:41 ET by Free StinkerSure it answers the question.
And don't you want you're beliefs to corespond to the facts?
Here are two examples. Buddism & Christianity:
Buddism: Adam Sandler put it, "Should we be getting lectured on self-control by a guy who weighs 300 pounds?"
Christianity: The apostles have valid testimony that Jesus did rise from the dead
only God can answer this
December 18, 2007 - 18:49 ET by TruthMongeronly God can answer this question - but please feel free to try!
And he did answer it, some
December 18, 2007 - 20:18 ET by Free StinkerAnd he did answer it, some 2,000 years ago.
Now stop trying to trick me into violating the "No Relegious Debate Rule".
Stupid TrollMonger.
then let Him answer it -
December 20, 2007 - 13:55 ET by TruthMongerthen let Him answer it - not you:)
I know it's tempting otherwise - sounds fun to me, too...
I'm just pointing out what
December 20, 2007 - 14:48 ET by Free StinkerI'm just pointing out what you failed to notice. Troll.
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
Heya Free, I missed the "no
December 20, 2007 - 15:21 ET by tracheostomyHeya Free, I missed the "no religious debate" rule and want to know if that applied to the Woodshed forum as well. This is me asking anyone (nicely) for the link or whatever and I'll behave accordingly.
Please.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trache - There was one
December 20, 2007 - 17:20 ET by Free StinkerTrache - There was one remark here, and I am unable to find the other comment I recall seeing. (and the "new" search function at NB sucks)
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
Thanks Free. We asked him
December 20, 2007 - 17:30 ET by tracheostomyThanks Free. We asked him about this in the "I have to take issue" thread, and last I heard, they were working on new rules for the forums.
EDIT: At least that's how I read it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
troll:)
December 20, 2007 - 17:37 ET by TruthMongerthis "rule" you mention has been recinded thanks to me taking issue:)
troll
we can debate religion here - as long as there is no defamation - again thanks to me taking issue
troll
and free is pretty damn pissed off about me snatching this victory out of the jaws of his bigoted attempt to defeat my anti-defamation efforts here
troll
so now he uses the pathetic troll accusation on me all the time - see above
troll
it's pretty much rock bottom for the guy from there
troll
and free is pretty damn
December 20, 2007 - 19:39 ET by Free Stinkerand free is pretty damn pissed off about me snatching this victory out
of the jaws of his bigoted attempt to defeat my anti-defamation efforts
here
No, it's your ignorance.
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
"Go
December 18, 2007 - 22:04 ET by botgand teach them whatsoever I have told you" Jesus
"My little children I write these things that you may know you have eternal life" John the Apostle
It seems that the Apostles view is different than your view and we know that John has heard him. I would reason that either God has two conflicting messages or you haven't heard Him correctly.
"how would i know? if i knew everything i'd run for God" ----crpl Klinger
and teach
December 20, 2007 - 14:01 ET by TruthMongerand teach them whatsoever I have told you" Jesus
It goes like this:
God -----> message -------> messenger -------> evangelism
God answers the questions, we just deliver the message, we do not answer the questions, we are just the messengers - got it?
question is TM
December 20, 2007 - 20:32 ET by botgdo you get it? if what you are told conflicts with what John the apostle has been told (for we know he writes that which he has seen, heard felt, touched of the word of life) you are hearing from different sources.
"how would i know? if i knew everything i'd run for God" ----crpl Klinger
it's interpretation and
December 28, 2007 - 13:12 ET by TruthMongerit's interpretation and discernment, isn't it...
you can ask three different Christian fundie scholars from the same home town what John said and get three different conflicting accounts very easily...
even without Satan in there causing trouble we still have considerable trouble first INTERPRETING the same way, and then secondly I've found that it is virtually impossible to COMMUNICATE between two people EVEN WHEN THEY AGREE COMPLETELY they can still disagree due to very basic communication foul-ups - the definition of just one word has significantly different meaning between two people - and this paragraph I have typed here has almost 50 words so far, secondly we phase in and out of listening and reading, some days we are better at focusing and comprehending than others, some days we are angry and frustrated and communicate based on those emotions, whereas the next day we can be happy and patient and communicate completely different messages about the exact same topic, then factor in different cultural references from different geographic locations just 10 or 20 miles apart - let alone the international conversations we have here every day...
I have barely scratched the surface of our basic communication difficulties at this point in history...
Haven't even touched interpretation problems yet...
And