|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 121 responses total. |
marcvh
|
|
response 41 of 121:
| 
Feb 15 00:51 UTC 2006 |
There are also issues it raises about the sociology of religion that are
a bit troubling, as it suggests that when we move between a state of sin
and a state of grace we become a non-Christian and a Christian
respectively. This means that a person may flip back and forth between
Christianity and non-Christianity often, possibly more than once a day
(particularly if you're Catholic, although I've never heard a Catholic
argue that when you're in a state of sin you stop being a Catholic, or a
Christian for that matter.)
Normally people want to talk about religious belief in relatively stable
terms, so you can ask a question like "what fraction of the US population
is Christian?" and get a meaningful answer. If we define religous
belief in less stable terms then it becomes a question similar to "what
fraction of the US population has to go to the bathroom?"
|
kingjon
|
|
response 42 of 121:
|
Feb 15 00:57 UTC 2006 |
Re #40:
There are some explanations of how the ignorant can be saved -- I'm not really
familiar with their details.
Infants are generally held to be not responsible for their disobedience until
later -- it isn't deserving of punishment if they weren't old enough to make a
choice. (The same argument is often made for mentally disabled people.)
In any case, in my understanding (which I understand is not universally agreed
upon) if someone were to after the separation cry out and accept the gift he or
she would be accepted. (This deals with some of the "ignorant.") Most if not
all will not, however, because their turn before the throne was so painful that
they would rather hide in the awful darkness of the separation that we call
Hell.
Re #41:
Did you *read* my summary? Your "issue" doesn't match what I wrote. To compress
to one (more wordy and jargoned) sentence: A Christian is someone who has
accepted Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement for his disobedience and
seeks to live a life of obedience hereafter. For a Christian, disobedience to
God is uncomfortable; for most non-Christians (at least in this day and age),
it isn't.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 43 of 121:
|
Feb 15 01:11 UTC 2006 |
Re #43: Of course I read it. But now you're changing it, which is fine
with me. So, let's say Bob, who believes in the divinity of Jesus
Christ and calls himself a Christian, is currently being disobedient to
God (or disobedient to what his church tell him God wants, anyway.) Bob
is coveting his neighbor's wife. Bob feels uncomfortable about this
situation, but he does not stop doing it; in fact he finds himself doing
it more and more.
Is Bob saved?
Is Bob a Christian?
|
bru
|
|
response 44 of 121:
|
Feb 15 01:12 UTC 2006 |
Which is why I believe as Pelagius did.
|
bru
|
|
response 45 of 121:
|
Feb 15 01:13 UTC 2006 |
did Bob ask God for forgiveness and make an effort to change?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 46 of 121:
|
Feb 15 01:14 UTC 2006 |
Thanks for the clarification. Based on that limited information, I can't be
certain. It's possible that he is a Christian who happens to be losing this
particular battle, and it's also possible that he isn't a Christian but thinks
he is.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 47 of 121:
|
Feb 15 02:59 UTC 2006 |
Bru slipped (and then I lost my connection for an hour), and his question is a
good one, but I assumed the affirmative.
|
keesan
|
|
response 48 of 121:
|
Feb 15 03:11 UTC 2006 |
Jon, why do you believe that Christianity is correct and other religions are
not?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 49 of 121:
|
Feb 15 03:48 UTC 2006 |
Re #46: I'm glad you now recognize a person can think they are Christian
without being so. Previously, you suggested that one who mouths the words
"I accept Christ as my savior" was automatically imbued with the spirit of
God. Also, your summary is interesting in what it omits, such as Christ's
rejection of the Old Testament (except for certain OT prophets). Which
returns to the original point of this post. If there were more real
Christians, who loved their neighbors, instead of those "Christians" who
believe in a vengeful OT God, *perhaps* the results surveyed would be
different.
|
twenex
|
|
response 50 of 121:
|
Feb 15 13:43 UTC 2006 |
If there were more real Christians who believed in a realistically-portrayed
OT God, instead of those "Christians" who believed in a "vengeful OT God",
*perhaps* there wouldn't be so much anti-Semitism amongst them.
|
fudge
|
|
response 51 of 121:
|
Feb 15 13:46 UTC 2006 |
"realistically portrayed"?? good grief jeff where the fuck did you pull that
out of? :) [sorry, couldn't let you get away with that :P ]
|
twenex
|
|
response 52 of 121:
|
Feb 15 13:51 UTC 2006 |
Huh?
|
fudge
|
|
response 53 of 121:
|
Feb 15 13:58 UTC 2006 |
how can you realistically portray something no-one can see?
|
twenex
|
|
response 54 of 121:
|
Feb 15 14:04 UTC 2006 |
By portraying Him as merciful and not "vengeful". Obviously.
|
fudge
|
|
response 55 of 121:
|
Feb 15 14:13 UTC 2006 |
and where did the "realistic" part come into it? :P
and are you saying believers should ignore unconfortable bits of the sacred
texts, to reconcile the scriptures with accepted morality? jerico wasn't wiped
to give the jews a home, just 'cos they pissed him off? ;)
|
twenex
|
|
response 56 of 121:
|
Feb 15 14:15 UTC 2006 |
No, I'm saying the portrayal of God in the "OT" as merely vengeful is a
typical Christian misinterpretation of the Scriptures.
|
fudge
|
|
response 57 of 121:
|
Feb 15 15:09 UTC 2006 |
so he *is* vengeful and petty, just not *all* the time?
|
twenex
|
|
response 58 of 121:
|
Feb 15 15:16 UTC 2006 |
Who said "petty"?
|
fudge
|
|
response 59 of 121:
|
Feb 15 15:26 UTC 2006 |
I did. That's what being vengeful for perceived slights is... ;)
|
twenex
|
|
response 60 of 121:
|
Feb 15 15:33 UTC 2006 |
Who said they're perceived? We're talking about God...
|
marcvh
|
|
response 61 of 121:
|
Feb 15 15:46 UTC 2006 |
My main point is that not even all Christians can agree on a functional
definition of "who exactly is a Christian?" Catholics have a different
view from fundamentalist Protestants and yet another view is held by
liberal Protestants, and so on. This leaves little hope for any kind
of consistent definition of "who exactly is an x?" for various religious
values of x. It gets even more complicated if you consider that not all
religions are mutually exclusive.
|
fudge
|
|
response 62 of 121:
|
Feb 15 16:05 UTC 2006 |
re#60: again, I did, you need to accept that I do not take the scriptures as
fact, but I can have my interpretation of what is said...
crap, think how animated it would get in front of a few pints :)
<fudge starts sharpening the blades>
|
rcurl
|
|
response 63 of 121:
|
Feb 15 16:49 UTC 2006 |
(This discussion has degenerated into proving the contention in "Why can't
we all be Japanese?")
|
tod
|
|
response 64 of 121:
|
Feb 15 17:45 UTC 2006 |
I have a cousin in Germany that recently gave birth to a boy. She was going
to name him "David" because its a very nice name for a boy. Instead, she
named him something like "Dennis" because she was afraid the anti-semitism
may ruin his opportunities in life. She's not a Jew. That's just how things
work in people's minds.
When I hear somebody talking about "saving" and "salvation", I want to break
their fuckin nose cuz they've never spent a day wondering if they could wind
up hanging from a tree for being a Jew or negro.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 65 of 121:
|
Feb 15 17:49 UTC 2006 |
"merciful ot god," jeff?
tell it to the cannanites. :P~~~
|