Originally posted by BChristianK
Originally posted by PureX
Since BCK did not answer this post on another thread, and it was getting kind of far afield from that thread's topic anyway, I thought I'd post it here and see if anyone was willing to address the points I was directing at BCK:
Here's the www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=612729#post612729]original post:
I'm not assuming that I know anyone's heart, I'm just taking what they say at face value, and comparing it to Christ as I understand Christ. Nothing more.
Boy, itâ€™s a good thing I happened across this thread.
Uh, here is what you said, PureX.
Most thieves don't consider themselves thieves, they think they're some sort of "Robin hood", instead. What we think we are and what we really are, are often very different. That's why our egos have us behave so selfishly and defensively.
You have to assume that those you are referring to on TOL think they are something you know they are not. That's the assumptiveness I was referring to.
The truth is that we do often think we are very different than we are, because we judge ourselves by our own standards, while others judge us by our words and deeds.
And how do you know this?
Obedience to whom?
That would be God.
.... Obedience to your own concept of God and God's will.
Your concept of God is your concept of God and my concept of God is my concept of God. That's not exactly first rate detective work and it only begs the question.
And that's just as egotistical and selfish as anyone else who is obeying their own concepts of God and God's will, or whatever other paradigm they follow.
Wrong, if my concept of God is informed by something other than myself, then it is still my concept of God, but it is not an egotistical religion. If my concept of God was formed purely by my opinion about who God is and what He would want (strangely correlative with what I would what) then that would be an egotistical religion.
Christ is an idea, now, not a person.
No, He's still a person.
If you want to argue about it then produce the person of Christ.
Ascended into heaven, but don't worry, you'll get your chance to meet Him.
You can't, because whatever Christ was, Christ is an idea, now.
Was Jimmy Hoffa a person? Ok, prove it, produce him. :chuckle:
This is an idea.
False dichotomy, you're an idea and a person.
It's your conception of what Christ is.
Again, so what? My conception about who Christ is, is my conception... So? My conception about who Christ is was not informed by my imagination, it is informed by the historicity of the biblical account.
Surely a man of your intelligence can see the difference between.
1. Viewing Christ through the egotistical lenses of personal predilection.
2. Viewing Christ through the lenses of historical accounts and written documentation.
And it differs somewhat from mine, as I would not have included the "righteous judgment".
This is religious dogma, which you are free to follow if you want, but as I previously posted, I think it blinds people to the real essence and value of Christ (love, forgiveness and healing) and encourages self-loathing, prejudice, willful ignorance, strive - all the negative expressions we see here on TOL and around the country these days.
Good for you! Now, is it religious dogma? Sure. And your impression of God is just as religiously dogmatic as mine. So your criticism is non-unique. Second, you have presented another false dichotomy. There is no problem with Christ being loving, forgiving, healing and the One who will bring God's righteous judgment.
But it's you who is choosing to characterizing the logos this way.
Me and John and Peter and Paul and Jesus Himself. But I can see how your attempt to make it all my fault would make it easier for you and others to reject. So, don't reject this concept on my account, blame it on John and Peter an Paul and Jesus.
It's you who is choosing this hatred and intolerance and calling it God's will.
And it's you who is falsely categorizing intolerance with hatred. I love it when folks toss these words around without qualification.
Would you "tolerate" another holocaust?
You hateful jerk. :chuckle:
You are "doing what you please" in either case.
Nice try, but if given my druthers, I'd rather just buddy up to everyone and not have to take a stand on what God calls righteousness. I'm a real people pleaser in the sinful nature.
Choosing to believe that men's prejudices are God's prejudices is just as much "doing what you please" as choosing to believe that men's prejudices (as written in the bible) are not God's prejudices.
Unless of course what I have declared are God's prejudices really are God's prejudices. You have only presented us with flatfoot detective work. My characterization of the Logos is my characterization of the Logos, my view of God is my view of God. Good work! :BRAVO:
Unfortunately your uncovering the obvious doesn't prove your point or disprove mine.
Now the big question is, "is my view of God correct or incorrect." You haven't undertaken to answer that question.
This is the arrogance I was trying to point out to you in the last post. It's the arrogance of imagining that YOU aren't picking and choosing your beliefs while everyone else is, when in fact you ARE picking and choosing your beliefs just like everyone else.
The difference is what I am picking and choosing my beliefs based on. My own predilections, or on a standard outside myself?
I know you get it, you just don't want to admit it.
You picked the bible, and you chose to interpret it as you have, and you are no different than everyone else.
I pick the bible, right, and that is wholly different than believing whatever feels fuzzy that day. BTW, if youâ€™d like to serve up some alternate interpretations of the passages I cited concerning homosexuality Iâ€™d be happy to discuss them with you.
But something tells me you will pass up this challenge. Most relativists do, they know they canâ€™t go past the â€œthatâ€™s just your interpretationâ€? argument and actually discuss interpretations because they know that any interpretation they will offer can be exposed as ridiculous in short shrift. So Iâ€™ll hold out hope that your not like most relativists, if you need a reminder on the passages I quoted, here they are:
1. Leviticus 18:22
2. Leviticus 10:13
3. Romans 1:21-28
4. 1 Corinthians 6:9
5. 1 Timothy 1:10
We're ALL picking and choosing.
No joking, again the question is, what are our choices based on and are those choices an amalgamation of teachings we have constructed because they fit what feels good that day or are our choices based on a dedication to a single path chosen not because it is popular, but because it is right, and endeavoring to follow that path regardless of how unpopular one becomes for choosing it.
But for those of us who are able to admit this fact, we are also then able to choose to change what we believe if it becomes necessary.
Necessary for what?
And we are able to take responsibility for how what we have chosen to believe effects our words and deeds and how we effect other people.
Agreed. And I happen to think that choosing to warn otherâ€™s about the harm they will do to themselves is more responsible than choosing to change my beliefs so that I can win a popularity contest.
We can also learn to respect and tolerate the beliefs of others because we know that we're all picking and choosing according to our experiences and abilities.
Unless of course the fundi's believes contradict the relativistic choice to respect and tolerate every belief regardless of the illogic of some beliefs, then BASH THE FUNDI!!!
Well, you are free to believe as you wish, just as any klansman is free to do the same.
And you are free to believe as you wish, just like any pantheistic relativistic pedophile is free to do the same.
See, youâ€™re not the only one who can poison the well.
But unfortunately your beliefs promote hatred and violence and those Christians that you disagree with are only a little more extreme than you are.
Iâ€™ve never promoted hatred or violence. Iâ€™ve told you this more than once. I challenge you to quote me even once where I promoted violence or hatred against anyone. If you canâ€™t, then Iâ€™d abbreviate this deceptive rhetoric before you lose all credibility. It is clear that you have chosen to continually push down the straw man as apposed to actually engaging the substance of my arguments.
And because so many Christians have chosen this desire to oppression people through violence the rest of society now has to try and protect itself from them.
Your definition of violence and oppression are: 1, inaccurate and 2. melodramatic in their exaggeration.
Christians donâ€™t oppress anyone. We disagree and we exercise our first amendment rights to voice our opinions in a representative democracy. Second, Christians, compared to other politically and socially active subgroups in the United States have drastically lower incidence of violence. You put a group of Berkley grads in tie-dyed shirts and â€œno blood for oilâ€? signs on the street and you have a recipe for a riot. You put together a bunch of silver haired fundiâ€™ grandmaâ€™s in their Sunday best and you usually have a recipe for a pot-luck. :chuckle:
I'm not overly impressed by what men write in books about God.
No offense, but Iâ€™m not overly impressed by what you think about what men wrote in those books about God.
I read it, and I consider it, and I reject that which I believe will lead to negative human expression (like willful ignorance, prejudice, hatred, violence, etc.) and I accept that which I believe will lead me to more positive human expression (love, forgiveness, kindness, tolerance, honesty, humility, openness, etc.).
And the criteria to determine what will lead to negativity and what will lead to more positive human expressions is presided over by none other than PureX. And you call my ethical methodology egotistical :chuckle:
Picking out quotes to validate these negative human expressions don't mean anything to me.
And your assertion that I simply pick out quotes doesnâ€™t mean anything to me, if you want to discuss those citations in a responsible manner, Iâ€™d be happy to reciprocate, but if you want to just reject them, then reject them. In either case, stop declaring that it is â€œjust my interpretationâ€? if you donâ€™t have an alternate interpretation to give. Contrary to your assertion, not all interpretations are equally valid, some are just wrong.
Why don't you try and explain how embracing such negative human expressions add value to human life.
Its not a negative human expression. Itâ€™s a negative human expression to recast something as permissible that God has cast as sinful. You see, when the pedophiles get enough political support to legitimate their practices, the philosophy of â€œtolerationâ€? held by relativists like yourself will shift once again to include them and anyone who speaks out against such practices will be called, â€œintolerant,â€? â€œprejudiced,â€? â€œhateful,â€? and â€œviolent.â€?
No, I'm not any different from you. We are both "picking and choosing" what we believe about God and life and ourselves.
Based on different criteria however. I choose based on the revelation given in the bible, you choose based on what you think might be a â€œpositive human expressionâ€? leaving the sole authority of defining what that might be in the same shoes you are standing in.
The difference seems to be that your choices attempt to defend negative human expressions such as willful ignorance, hatred, prejudice, oppression and even violence if taken to a slightly greater extreme.
You mean if taken to an exaggerative and unjustified straw man argument. :chuckle:
And this is what I'm objecting to. How do you defend this, except to proclaim blindly that "God says so!"? But who says that God says so ... you do. So the question remains unanswered.
How do I defend my right to say that homosexuality is a sin that is detestable in the eyes of God?
1. It is a nonviolent expression of a religious conviction protected by the first amendment of the constitution of the United States.
2. More importantly, it is true.
Are you promoting the idea that America should become a "Christian Nation"?
That would be nice, but Iâ€™m not banking on it. Iâ€™m not one of those folks who look back at our history and paint it as a good olâ€™ Christian nation thinking it would be nice to get back to the â€œgood olâ€™ days.â€?
Are you voting for people who you believe will promote this agenda?
Am I voting for people who will promote America being a â€œChristian nation?â€? I donâ€™t know of anyone on the ticket running on this platform.
Do you want kids to be forced to pray in schools?
I personally donâ€™t care if a time is allowed for kids to pray in schools or not. Your representation that they have been forced to pray (â€œLittle Ricky, now you pray to my God or you are going to have to put your name on the board.â€?) is another indication of your melodramatic style of argumentation, but personally, I donâ€™t care if they give my kid a time to pray or not, weâ€™ll pray at home.
Do you want Christian imagery plastered all over public buildings, like court houses?
Again, donâ€™t really care. It is more important that the judge be just and compassionate and follow the teaching of the bible than it is that a stone monument hang out in the foyer.
But are you following this through in your ACTIONS? Are people really free to reject your claims about the truth or are you really trying to force them to accept your truth by forcing the Christian right's political agenda on all of america?
Two things. 1. Iâ€™m not a huge fan of the Christian rightâ€™s political emphasis. I personally donâ€™t think that Jesus came to reconcile the world unto Himself through politics.
2. That being said, isnâ€™t EVERYONE trying to force others to accept their truth by forcing their agenda on all of America? What country have you been living in lately? Do the gay rights activists follow through with their actions by attempting to take away peopleâ€™s ability to freely reject their lifestyle; in affect, forcing America to accept their version of truth through a political agenda? Do the animal rights activists use their political influence to try to take away the peopleâ€™s ability to freely reject their view about wearing fur through a political agenda?
OF COURSE!! That the nature of a representative democracy. You act like the religious right is the only group who uses their influence to sway governmental agenda!
You throw around terms like violence and oppression as if you really believe that exerting influence through a representative democracy is violent and oppressive. Really what you mean is that it is violent and oppresive if the agenda is one you don't agree with. Whatâ€™s down right hilarious is that your are so biased in using those terms you donâ€™t realize that when you go to vote, you are doing the same thing I am doing. You call your actions exercising your rights. You call my actions violent and oppressive.
What do they call that when one does something but points the finger at another for doing the selfsame thing, what is that term PureX?
You say that we're free to ignore you, but I am seeing a whole lot of Christians who don't really want anyone to be so free at all.
You are free to ignore us. You can choose not to log on to TOL and read our posts, you can stay out of thier churches, really, no one is going to show up with a rifle and force you to go. You can go to the polls and vote how you like. You can even peaceably assemble and say mean, hurtful things about all those nice grey haired fundi grandmaâ€™s having a pot-luck down the street at the central fundi church.
Chances are they are praying for you while you are calling them hateful and violent.
They really want to force their views on everyone who doesn't already agree with them, and they're routinely talking about violent force, now, too.
Substantiation please? BTW, exercising oneâ€™s right to free speech is not the same as forcing one's views on everyone else.
This is an assault on America and on personal freedom, and it's tearing the country apart at a time when we should be pulling together.
I always love it when folks try to pull the â€œwe should all be pulling togetherâ€? tacktic. What that means is, â€œwe should all be pulling together to advance my agenda.â€?
And how do Christians justify this assault on personal freedom?
How do the tie-dyed shirt wearinâ€™ Berkley gradâ€™s justify their assault on personal freedom?
The same way. BTW, Iâ€™d like to see some evidence that the Christians are assaulting personal freedom.
...They say "God says so". But who decided that God said this? ... They did.
No, the silver haired grandmotherâ€™s at the first and main fundi church didnâ€™t get together one Sunday over a pot luck and write the bible PureX.
They didnâ€™t decide that God said what He said.
Grace and Peace