A writer to the Star Tribune published today made an interesting point, thought I would share:

http://www.startribune.com/readers-write...430947523/

Quote:...

Kass goes on to claim, “The basic tenet of Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God and that, without that belief, salvation is impossible.”

As a lifelong Christian, I join many others in the understanding that Kass’ claim is false and that the basic tenet of Christianity is, instead, the basic teaching of Jesus: Love God above all, and love your neighbor as yourself. The exclusivist claim cited by Kass, and probably held by most fundamentalist Christians, is based on an interpretation of scripture with which many Christians disagree.

(06-27-2017 08:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  A writer to the Star Tribune published today made an interesting point, thought I would share:

http://www.startribune.com/readers-write...430947523/

Quote:...

Kass goes on to claim, “The basic tenet of Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God and that, without that belief, salvation is impossible.”

As a lifelong Christian, I join many others in the understanding that Kass’ claim is false and that the basic tenet of Christianity is, instead, the basic teaching of Jesus: Love God above all, and love your neighbor as yourself. The exclusivist claim cited by Kass, and probably held by most fundamentalist Christians, is based on an interpretation of scripture with which many Christians disagree.

Relevance to thread?

(06-27-2017 08:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 07:55 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  First, he never implied that the Christian response in the Crusades wasn't violent.

Secondly, you are a walking contradiction. In the justice kennedy thread you stated that "force is always necessary when an individual goes against the preferences (admittedly arbitrary ... by definition) of society, and refuses to cooperate." How can you hold that belief in regard to individuals within a society, but not see the Crusades as a measured application of force in response to a different society trying to impose their will on others?

Force and by extension, violence, are not necessarily evil things. It is wrong to force someone to do something against their beliefs (making a devout Christian bake a wedding cake for a gay couple), but it is not wrong or evil to use force in violent conflicts to defend oneself or society against another that is intent on conquering another (Crusades).

My only point -- which actually started out a couple pages back as a response to one of your points -- was that Christians have more than zero violence/hatred of Muslims. This is a historical fact.

I never implied that Christians' violence/hatred was equal to that of Muslims' violence/hatred, particularly in modern history, and never implied that violence/hatred is completely invalid.

So are you trying to say all Christians harbor hatred and violence towards Muslims?

As usual you aren't even correct about what your point is/was. You told me a few pages back that I hated Muslims. I stated I did not. Period. End of story. Stop deflecting and trying to change what you originally said. It's a tiresome act that everybody on this board knows by now.

(06-27-2017 09:35 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Relevance to thread?

That exclusivism within Christianity is actually an extremist viewpoint, not shared by all Christians.

(06-27-2017 08:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  A writer to the Star Tribune published today made an interesting point, thought I would share:

http://www.startribune.com/readers-write...430947523/

Quote:...

Kass goes on to claim, “The basic tenet of Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God and that, without that belief, salvation is impossible.”

As a lifelong Christian, I join many others in the understanding that Kass’ claim is false and that the basic tenet of Christianity is, instead, the basic teaching of Jesus: Love God above all, and love your neighbor as yourself. The exclusivist claim cited by Kass, and probably held by most fundamentalist Christians, is based on an interpretation of scripture with which many Christians disagree.

Bible says no...

John 14:6 - Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast"

--

To be a Christian you need to accept Christ as your lord and savior. If Jesus is *NOT* God and you make him your lord than that is akin to blasphemy. Love for others is a fruit of the spirit but it is in not the method of salvation.

You can be an awesome person and not believe in the divinity of Christ.... But you can't be a Christian and not believe in it.

I believe people are too wrapped up in their possessions and that it causes them pain in the end. That does not make me a Buddhist.

(06-27-2017 10:01 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:35 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Relevance to thread?

That exclusivism within Christianity is actually an extremist viewpoint, not shared by all Christians.

It does not follow that just because something is not beleived by all, that it's an extreemist..

If you can't say this, then you're probably not a Christian

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

(06-27-2017 08:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 11:11 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I did no such thing...

What was your argument, then? You've spend the last several posts trying to justify the Crusades as being a response to something.

I also pointed out it was 800 years ago right? Hell I've forgiven the English for what they did to my people and that was going on only four or five family generations ago.

Quote:The whole thing merely started by me pointing out that Christians have more than zero violence/hatred of Muslims. It's a historical fact.

Which has *zero* relevance to the topic at hand... The Jews Killed Christ, but you know what, that was 2K years ago so I don't really hold it against them.

Quote:I never implied that Christians' violence/hatred was equal to that of Muslims' violence/hatred, particularly in modern history, and never implied that violence/hatred is completely invalid.

So you basically tried to derail the thread by bringing up something which was not relevant...

(06-27-2017 08:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 11:11 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I did no such thing...

What was your argument, then? You've spend the last several posts trying to justify the Crusades as being a response to something.

The whole thing merely started by me pointing out that Christians have more than zero violence/hatred of Muslims. It's a historical fact.

(06-27-2017 01:13 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  You forgot "please dear God go away".

Nope, gonna be right here for you TB4E! So you can either suck it up, like a big boy, or you can put me on ignore.

(06-27-2017 07:55 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  First, he never implied that the Christian response in the Crusades wasn't violent.

Secondly, you are a walking contradiction. In the justice kennedy thread you stated that "force is always necessary when an individual goes against the preferences (admittedly arbitrary ... by definition) of society, and refuses to cooperate." How can you hold that belief in regard to individuals within a society, but not see the Crusades as a measured application of force in response to a different society trying to impose their will on others?

Force and by extension, violence, are not necessarily evil things. It is wrong to force someone to do something against their beliefs (making a devout Christian bake a wedding cake for a gay couple), but it is not wrong or evil to use force in violent conflicts to defend oneself or society against another that is intent on conquering another (Crusades).

My only point -- which actually started out a couple pages back as a response to one of your points -- was that Christians have more than zero violence/hatred of Muslims. This is a historical fact.

I never implied that Christians' violence/hatred was equal to that of Muslims' violence/hatred, particularly in modern history, and never implied that violence/hatred is completely invalid.

The crusaders should have taken it much further.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

It all feels like it was an engineered failure. I'm amazed Merkel is coming out like a rose from all of this. Italy should be really disgusted as they're left holding the bag and acting as a point of entry for thousands of people they did not really ask for. It seems like Merkel and those around her WANTED for this to happen...

I think the Czechs handled themselves correctly relative to some of the Western European nations that should know better.

(06-22-2017 03:38 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 03:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 11:37 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Whites need to start having a lot more children.

Too expensive. Too much work.

Unless you mean that you want more white people on welfare?


One kid is just fine. If you choose not to have any kids, also fine. Two max.

Replacement rate is 2.1. Anything less and the population declines. As long as they can afford their kids, who are you to say "2 max"?

Yep, I'm good at two but see no reason to fault other for having many more if they can afford many more. This isn't China.

(06-27-2017 08:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  A writer to the Star Tribune published today made an interesting point, thought I would share:

http://www.startribune.com/readers-write...430947523/

Quote:...

Kass goes on to claim, “The basic tenet of Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God and that, without that belief, salvation is impossible.”

As a lifelong Christian, I join many others in the understanding that Kass’ claim is false and that the basic tenet of Christianity is, instead, the basic teaching of Jesus: Love God above all, and love your neighbor as yourself. The exclusivist claim cited by Kass, and probably held by most fundamentalist Christians, is based on an interpretation of scripture with which many Christians disagree.

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but there's nothing "fundamentalist" about a basic tenant of the faith. Understand, I'm not even coming from the point of view of a Christian. Just a basic academic understanding of the tenants of Christianity leads one to come away with the idea the belief in Christ as the son of God is necessary. Hell, the 3 wings of Christianity (or the 2 lungs if want to ignore the crazy protestants.....kidding) don't agree on much of anything. Despite that, they all agree that you actually have to believe in the dude's divinity.

Just based off this, your letter to the editor guy is the one holding the extreme position.

Meanwhile in Poland

(06-28-2017 12:57 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Meanwhile in Poland

LazyTom is supposedly, allegedly, there now. I think he's really holed up somewhere in Mississippi and is currently employing a social media blackout to convince everyone he's really in Poland.