I have a question for some of the Political forum regulars....

#452
#452
DinkinFlicka said:
Seriously? You're listening to someone who said money isn't a diabolical device?

Oh wait, he dropped a couple of stock lines heard from the mouth of your average preacher during your average Sunday service. Damn, outplayed again!
Click to expand...

You continue to show your ignorance. I am off to my Mega Church to worship with about 8,000 fellow believers. Have a great day.
 
#453
#453
T-TownVol said:
You continue to show your ignorance. I am off to my Mega Church to worship with about 8,000 fellow believers. Have a great day.
Click to expand...

My ignorance is your naivety. I'm off to work, which will be followed by a hike. I plan on having a productive Sunday.
 
#454
#454
gsvol said:
God bless you too.

The people to which you address your post have very little idea of what is at stake.

I do disagree with you on one point, I believe Jesus did give us room to act in our own self defense.
Click to expand...

Great minds think alike?
 
#458
#458
DinkinFlicka said:
Seriously? You're listening to someone who said money isn't a diabolical device?
Click to expand...
It tells us a great deal that you got THIS out of what I actually wrote.

Oh wait, he dropped a couple of stock lines heard from the mouth of your average preacher during your average Sunday service. Damn, outplayed again!
Click to expand...

When you can't win a debate then deflect and divert... and if all fails start an argument, right?

Which "stock lines" would you like to discuss?

And for that matter, what prevents a "stock line" from being simple, established TRUTH? Answer: Nothing. In fact, things that can withstand the test of time and criticism are the most trustworthy things.
 
Last edited:
#459
#459
sjt18 said:
It tells us a great deal that you got THIS out of what I actually wrote.



When you can't win a debate then deflect and divert... and if all fails start an argument, right?

Which "stock lines" would you like to discuss?
Click to expand...

He knows that his intelligence level has been exposed. That is why he switched to "starbucks" and "batman" jokes. (Which I see have now been deleted by the Mods.)
 
#469
#469
Yeah, I'd be in OE territory had I not disappeared so much...of course his are post paddings on roids...
 
#470
#470
T-TownVol said:
He knows that his intelligence level has been exposed. That is why he switched to "starbucks" and "batman" jokes. (Which I see have now been deleted by the Mods.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't switch to humor because the debate was going in circles or anything.

One thing you're failing to realize is that Atheist/Christian debates go nowhere. I can only poke fun and raise eyebrows for so long before I get bored. Your posts haven't changed my views one bit, just as my posts failed to change your opinion. Lesson learned? I give less of a flying turd and know when the argument becomes pointless. Humor and sarcasm, however, seldom run out of fuel.

And to SJT vol (I'm too lazy to multiquote), if you base truth solely on the test of time, it's hardly a wonder why you say the things you say. If you apply that philosophy to other text and words spewed by religious leaders (of all types) over history, then what you have there is a big, fat contradiction. How can everybody be right?

I'm also perfectly aware of the true point of your previous post... you, like many many many many Christians, denied the church as an institutionalized political force and gave it the definition of the Christian religion.

'The church' is a relative term and you're welcome to define it as you will... just as I'm allowed to define it as I please. We've both given it viable definitions, but it just boils down to what someone thinks.
 
Last edited:
#471
#471
I did not ask you what YOU think the definition of the church is. I ask specifically what Jesus said is the definition. Which you continue to not provide an answer for. I do not debate on what I "think" about what the Bible says. I debate what the Bible actually says.
 
#472
#472
DinkinFlicka said:
And to SJT vol (I'm too lazy to multiquote), if you base truth solely on the test of time, it's hardly a wonder why you say the things you say.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised... but have you noticed how often you use straw men, half-truths, fallacies of limited alternatives, etc in your arguments.

Please cite where I said that truth is "soley" based on a test of time.
If you apply that philosophy to other text and words spewed by religious leaders (of all types) over history, then what you have there is a big, fat contradiction. How can everybody be right?
Click to expand...
Since I didn't say what you suggested... you are arguing absolute non-sense here.

There are several very good tests of "truth". One is internal consistency... does a religious doctrine or a philosophy contradict itself. If I were not absolutely convinced that by "proving all things" according to the command of scripture my Christian beliefs were internally consistent... I would forsake them.

Another test is how does a worldview answer the critical questions of existence, intelligence, consciousness, morality, the nature of man, the nature of redemption, etc.

I've taken the time to compare my worldview to many others. I am satisfied of two things. One, I am demanding/critical but open minded to alternative views. Two, my current worldview passes the mentioned tests far better than any other I've seen.

I'm also perfectly aware of the true point of your previous post... you, like many many many many Christians, denied the church as an institutionalized political force and gave it the definition of the Christian religion.
Click to expand...
No. I haven't denied anything. I have clarified the point that "political force" and "New Testament Christianity" are mutually exclusive and even hostile to one another. EVERY attempt to use political force to advance the "kingdom of Christ" is a perversion of what He and His Apostles taught.

"Christian" has a definition. The fact that many have misappropriated the label does not change its definition.

For what its worth, I do believe there are those on the "Christian Right" who skirt way too close to advocating the use of the US Gov't to impose a set of values. While I sympathize with many of his goals, James Dobson falls in that category. Virtually all of the "liberal" evangelicals do.

'The church' is a relative term and you're welcome to define it as you will... just as I'm allowed to define it as I please.
Click to expand...
No. It really isn't. It is a concrete term with a concrete, objective meaning. The fact that it is commonly even pervasively misused does not change the basic fact that "the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch". The Greek word transliterated "Christian" means "Christ-like or Christ followers". Fundamentally, objectively... it isn't even a title/name/label. It was a description of the character of those who believed in Christ as Savior given to them by their enemies. It is not "relative" in the least.
We've both given it viable definitions, but it just boils down to what someone thinks.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Whether they think wrongly/ignorantly or correctly/informed.
 
Last edited:
#473
#473
T-TownVol said:
I did not ask you what YOU think the definition of the church is. I ask specifically what Jesus said is the definition. Which you continue to not provide an answer for. I do not debate on what I "think" about what the Bible says. I debate what the Bible actually says.
Click to expand...

However Jesus defines the definition is totally irrelevant... unless you want to argue that the church itself isn't Christlike, because I highly doubt Jesus would approve of the American Christian church system being the way it is.

I'm telling YOU that it's more of an institution and a business establishment than a network of houses for worship. If that weren't true, then churches like Bellevue wouldn't exist. Do I fault Christianity? Of course not. Do I fault greedy human beings who see religion as a market immune to economic stress? Yes. This is a pattern used to exploit a group of people with a common belief, whether it be political, ethnic, or religious.

And finally, to answer your question: I'm going to take a safe guess and say that Jesus defined HIS church as the kingdom of heaven, yeah? So, after seeing all his conflict with the religious bureaucracy throughout the NT... I think his opinion of institutionalized religion is so painfully obvious.

I just don't see the logic in a Christian defending the church. Defending your/His church? Cool, no problem. Defending THE church as an institution? What in the hell are you thinking?

"Think for yourself. Question authority."

Just worship how you want, man. Don't let anyone but your respective deity tell you how to worship.

sjt18 said:
Please cite where I said that truth is "soley" based on a test of time. Since I didn't say what you suggested... you are arguing absolute non-sense here.
Click to expand...

Well, when you say that 'truths' that withstand the test of time are the most trustworthy, that kind of cancels the need for any other tests. You did not say solely, I'll give you that and apologize... but that really doesn't invalidate what I said.

So since I said something similar to what you said, I'm arguing nonsense. See what I'm saying? ;)

sjt18 said:
There are several very good tests of "truth". One is internal consistency... does a religious doctrine or a philosophy contradict itself. If I were not absolutely convinced that by "proving all things" according to the command of scripture my Christian beliefs were internally consistent... I would forsake them.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but why? The Bible can be so open to individual interpretation so often, which could make one feel as though it never contradicts itself... but it's proven that it's chock full of 'em. Does one simply overlook them, accept them as mistakes made in ancient literature, or digest them as one of those "open to interpretation" scenarios?

sjt18 said:
I've taken the time to compare my worldview to many others. I am satisfied of two things. One, I am demanding/critical but open minded to alternative views. Two, my current worldview passes the mentioned tests far better than any other I've seen.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. To each his own. It would be a messed up world if we all shared the same world view... but that's kind of obvious. I was raised in a religious family (unorthodox, but still), and since I can remember I fought so hard as a child to force myself into buying everything I was taught about the Bible. I realized as a young teenager that I could never accept it, and I too compared what I felt to be truth to everything I had surveyed over the years and came to those very two conclusions you mentioned (run-on sentence with awkward wording... excuse me. I can't articulate myself after 7).

That's one facet of the human condition I really love; that we can spend an endless amount of time weighing logic and reason, yet we're all capable of having a different answer. It's really incredible.

sjt18 said:
No. I haven't denied anything. I have clarified the point that "political force" and "New Testament Christianity" are mutually exclusive and even hostile to one another. EVERY attempt to use political force to advance the "kingdom of Christ" is a perversion of what He and His Apostles taught.

"Christian" has a definition. The fact that many have misappropriated the label does not change its definition.
Click to expand...

Again, you denied nothing. You simply stated one thing and not the other. I apologize.

I agree with everything in that first paragraph and, as I stated earlier, I don't fault what Jesus taught (despite my lack of belief in it) and I certainly don't fault the folks who earnestly believe in those teachings and try to live their lives by what he said.

The sad fact is, though, is that those perversions are more prevalent than ever. Sure, we're not having the Crusades or the inquisition. But, if you ask me, I gathered from reading the Bible that God views no sin in darker light than any other. It seemed that he was willing to forgive every single sin, and that made taking a life no worse than stealing in his eyes.

Jesus witnessed murder and death, and if I recall, he was only truly angered by the bartering going on in "His father's house." That is EXACTLY what is going on today... you have these gentlemen on infomercials selling unfiltered, bottled water as atonement for their sins. You have people like Joel Osteen pitching his newest book to the 50,000+ people in his audience with millions more watching him on TV. I'm not religious, and it really disgusts me. Plus, he looks like the love child of Martin Short and Tim Allen. That's just gross.

sjt18 said:
No. It really isn't. It is a concrete term with a concrete, objective meaning. The fact that it is commonly even pervasively misused does not change the basic fact that "the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch". The Greek word transliterated "Christian" means "Christ-like or Christ followers". Fundamentally, objectively... it isn't even a title/name/label. It was a description of the character of those who believed in Christ as Savior given to them by their enemies. It is not "relative" in the least. Pretty much. Whether they think wrongly/ignorantly or correctly/informed.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we're really going to agree to disagree here. You're defining Christian whereas I'm defining the church.

Again, I have zero problems with Christians. Some of the noblest, most sincere ladies and gentlemen I have the pleasured of knowing are devout Christians. It's the church that bothers me (and most of them, funny enough). It IS a relative term however (church, not Christian). It is capable of meaning many things, as any dictionary will show you. I'm kind of in awe that my use of the word has sparked such a big discussion, seeing as everyone's definition of 'the church,' including mine, can be found in a dictionary.

Apologies for the misunderstandings and hostility. I get carried away on here, which is why I tend to stray from forums. I much prefer face to face discussions... I conduct myself with more reasoning and restraint, and I listen much better.

This was my longest forum post ever. I hope you take something from it, lol. Cheers.
 
#474
#474
Dinka,
You have just proven that you do not know what the Bible actually says.
I hope you get back in a church that will help you, God Bless.
 
#475
#475
T-TownVol said:
Dinka,
You have just proven that you do not know what the Bible actually says.
I hope you get back in a church that will help you, God Bless.
Click to expand...

I had to guess because after it was already established that 'building His church' was referencing the congregation, you still wanted more.

Don't worry, I'll be fine without another place to drive on Sunday.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top