(10-02-2012 11:29 AM)dcCid Wrote:  I am not convinced that the actual person we call Jesus is the actual Jesus. But I do believe in the concept of the holy trinity.

So your not a christian, you're a diest. By the way, any meaningful study of the Bible includes the original text and some understanding of the culture in which it was written.

Quote:We also disagree on the opinion that I think any government run by religious theology is dangerous, and you seem to believe that this is not true if based on Christian theology.

Any government run by man based on *any* theology or belief system is dangerous... Clear enough?

Quote:My purpose for posting the Hail Mary was to illustrate that there is disagreement even among Christian theology.

Have I implied otherwise? There are things Christians disagree on and its not a big thing and then there are core theological underpinnings of the religion. I don't get to call myself a Buddhist because I think greed is bad.

Quote:I also do not believe that you have to be baptized or believe in Jesus as the son of god to go to heaven.

Like I said, you're not a Christian. The baptism thing is up in the air, I don't really *know* so I would not say disagreeing one way or the other is heretical. But if you don't Believe in the trinity, the Divinity of Christ, and his words "there is no way unto the father" then you cant be called a Christian.

lol I love it when people use absolutes in religion as if they're compelling arguments at all.

(10-02-2012 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  lol I love it when people use absolutes in religion as if they're compelling arguments at all.

So I take it you're an "all paths lead to God" type person?

(10-02-2012 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  lol I love it when people use absolutes in religion as if they're compelling arguments at all.

I love it when people want to live in a world where words have no meaning other than what feels right at the time..

(10-02-2012 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  lol I love it when people use absolutes in religion as if they're compelling arguments at all.

I love it when someone is so desperate for attention that they insert irrelevant snark into one of the few civil, informative converstations that occur on this board.

(10-02-2012 12:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  lol I love it when people use absolutes in religion as if they're compelling arguments at all.

I love it when people want to live in a world where words have no meaning other than what feels right at the time..

If you're not a strict literalist (I really, really hope you aren't), meaning you follow all of the codes and laws enumerated in the old testament along with the new, you cannot point fingers at those who choose other aspects of the bible to ignore than you do. Well, you can, but the hypocrisy involved in doing so is pretty impressive.

Quote: So I take it you're an "all paths lead to God" type person?

No, not really sure where I stand. I certainly don't feel as those the bible in it's entirety is the unerring word of god, nor do I think the stories told within are all necessarily true. Beyond that, not really sure, though Jesus himself was pretty swell and I tend to agree with those who base their beliefs upon his teachings.

(10-02-2012 02:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 12:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  lol I love it when people use absolutes in religion as if they're compelling arguments at all.

I love it when people want to live in a world where words have no meaning other than what feels right at the time..

If you're not a strict literalist (I really, really hope you aren't), meaning you follow all of the codes and laws enumerated in the old testament along with the new, you cannot point fingers at those who choose other aspects of the bible to ignore than you do. Well, you can, but the hypocrisy involved in doing so is pretty impressive.

Yes, I really can. In the same way a member of any group can say "this makes you a member" and "this is flexible"...

A Christian is one who worships Christ. It's not only the understanding actual Christians have but the same understanding that people of other faiths have about Christians.

I could give a fat rats behind if he wants to pick and choose the things in the bible he finds profitable. But if he does not beleive in the diety of Christ that he is a Diest, not a Christian. No amount of post modern wanna feel nice is going to change that...

I'm a Christian expect I don't believe in the holy Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Immaculate Conception, the resurrection, the miracle he did, Pentecost, Forgiveness through the cross, ...

Its meaningless at that point. He might as well say "I like Cake" because hey who doesn't like cake am I right?

I'm white, no matter how much I may want to "be like mike".

No, you can't. You, more specifically a religious institution, can deny a person entrance into their specific denomination sure, but you can't limit who considers themselves a christian anymore than you can control those who don't consider themselves christian. It's a religious belief, it doesn't have to follow the rules of logic, reason, or accepted dogma, it's a personal decision that each person is free to make.

I mean, the Catholic church excommunicated Martin Luther, how binding do you think that was?

(10-02-2012 02:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, you can't. You, more specifically a religious institution, can deny a person entrance into their specific denomination sure, but you can't limit who considers themselves a christian anymore than you can control those who don't consider themselves christian. It's a religious belief, it doesn't have to follow the rules of logic, reason, or accepted dogma, it's a personal decision that each person is free to make.

I mean, the Catholic church excommunicated Martin Luther, how binding do you think that was?

At the time the Catholic Church excommunicated Luthor there were alredy longer established churches (the Greeks and the Copts survive to this day).

It was Binding Luthor was no longer a big "C" Catholic.

I could give a fat rats behind if he wants to pick and choose the things in the bible he finds profitable. But if he does not beleive in the diety of Christ that he is a Diest, not a Christian. No amount of post modern wanna feel nice is going to change that...

I'm a Christian expect I don't believe in the holy Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Immaculate Conception, the resurrection, the miracle he did, Pentecost, Forgiveness through the cross, ...

Its meaningless at that point. He might as well say "I like Cake" because hey who doesn't like cake am I right?

I can't limit who considers them selves a christian any more that I can prevent some nut job from thinking he is napoleon. Even if he's clearly not. But its crule to let some guy walk around thinking its a good idea to invade Russia in the fall..

edit) From the edit above

There is no 'post modern wanna feel nice' going on, you can consider him whatever you would like but you don't have the authority to decide who is what religion. That's all I'm stating.

EDIT: For the record, from reading your posts, you're an-ok christian in my book. I know you probably couldn't care less about my approval or anything, just wanted to let you know that I appreciate outspoken support for the separation of church and state from all self-described religious people.

I believe in banning abortion except to save the life of the mother, no gay marriage, no taxes for corporations, and no government services... But because I want to call myself progressive I demand you all accept that..

(10-02-2012 02:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  There is no 'post modern wanna feel nice' going on, you can consider him whatever you would like but you don't have the authority to decide who is what religion. That's all I'm stating.

EDIT: For the record, from reading your posts, you're an-ok christian in my book. I know you probably couldn't care less about my approval or anything, just wanted to let you know that I appreciate outspoken support for the separation of church and state from all self-described religious people.

But I do have the duty to tell him he thinks he is a Chritian despite the fact he denies all of the core tenants that set Christianity apart from Diesm. Hes more Jew than Christian.

edit... for the record most Christians don't want church and state playing. The argument is over where the line gets drawn.

I don't consider a menorah in a public part a declaration that we are a Jewish Nation so I dont want to ban it.

(10-02-2012 02:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I believe in banning abortion except to save the life of the mother, no gay marriage, no taxes for corporations, and no government services... But because I want to call myself progressive I demand you all accept that..

That doesn't work, though, because that is a political ideology based on quantifiable factors that can be defended, and not a religious belief. Just like a christian can believe Mary was a virgin due to 'faith', he can believe he is christian due to the same 'faith'.

I absolutely agree that the majority of christians don't want a mixing of church and state, from the policies the closest that one could argue is that a fair amount prefer preferential treatment for christian or abrahamic morality, but that's a far, far cry from a theocracy.

(10-02-2012 02:51 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 02:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  There is no 'post modern wanna feel nice' going on, you can consider him whatever you would like but you don't have the authority to decide who is what religion. That's all I'm stating.

EDIT: For the record, from reading your posts, you're an-ok christian in my book. I know you probably couldn't care less about my approval or anything, just wanted to let you know that I appreciate outspoken support for the separation of church and state from all self-described religious people.

But I do have the duty to tell him he thinks he is a Chritian despite the fact he denies all of the core tenants that set Christianity apart from Diesm. Hes more Jew than Christian.

edit... for the record most Christians don't want church and state playing. The argument is over where the line gets drawn.

I don't consider a menorah in a public part a declaration that we are a Jewish Nation so I dont want to ban it.

I thought I said that I do believe in the Holy Trinity.

And I am ok if you do not think I am Christian - does not change my beliefs. The Vatican probably does not recognize you as a Christian – and I am sure you could care less.

The point is mixing the theology with the law of the land (and that goes for extreme political theology) as well.

I have no problem with public exhibits of prayer, Christmas decorations, menorah, flying spaghetti Monster or atheist exhibits.

I am with you on where is the line drawn, but if someone wants to quote as a reason for a law, then they also need to listen to someone quote form their religious book .

(10-02-2012 03:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 02:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I believe in banning abortion except to save the life of the mother, no gay marriage, no taxes for corporations, and no government services... But because I want to call myself progressive I demand you all accept that..

That doesn't work, though, because that is a political ideology based on quantifiable factors that can be defended, and not a religious belief. Just like a christian can believe Mary was a virgin due to 'faith', he can believe he is christian due to the same 'faith'.

So what about a pro life person who loves government programs and high taxes for the rich are they progressive?

The checklist for a political philosophy is like a theological checklist (all be it with lesser eternal consequence). There are some things you can give on and some you can not.

*YOU* can's stop anyone from calling themselves progressive UCF, hell you cant stop a life long registered democrat who's never voted off ticket from calling themselves independent.

But *you* know when they are not...

Quote:I absolutely agree that the majority of christians don't want a mixing of church and state, from the policies the closest that gets seems to be that some might prefer preferential treatment for christian or abrahamic morality, but that's a far, far cry from a theocracy.

I dont even care if its preferential. If Hindus want to put a shrine in a park on a holy day then let them. I dislike the antagonism that many secularist have.

(10-02-2012 02:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Beyond that, not really sure, though Jesus himself was pretty swell and I tend to agree with those who base their beliefs upon his teachings.

Fair enough. I was curious because your statement about absolutes.

Christ said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father but by me." This is the foundation of Christianity and is definitely an absolute. Though I realize you also said you don't believe all that was written in the bible, so my guess is you'd probably question if Christ ever said it.

The funny thing about religions, at least to me, is that if there are no absolutes then what's the point? If everything is open to interpretation then really all you have left is people tayloring their religious beliefs to what makes them comfortable.

My personal belief is that if God truly is perfect and holy, which to be God He would have to be, then what He requires of His followers should bring us as close to holy as we can get. Given how imperfect our nature, I can't imagine being totally comfortable with what God asks of us is really possible. Can I as an unholy person ever truly be serving a holy God if I'm comfortable with all aspects of my faith and nothing about it is sacrificial? Seems God would demand more of me.

I agree completely that government and religion should be seperate. I don't want my religious beliefs mandated to anyone and I don't want government telling me how to practice mine.

At least that's how I see it.

(10-02-2012 03:06 PM)dcCid Wrote:  I thought I said that I do believe in the Holy Trinity.

I thought you implied you did not believe in the diety of Christ. If I am mistaken I beg your pardon.

Quote: I dont even care if its preferential. If Hindus want to put a shrine in a park on a holy day then let them. I dislike the antagonism that many secularist have.

I don't either, but I have to give them a little leeway due to the antagonism that non-secularists portray the average christian to have towards a secular government. But I do truly believe that there is a commanding majority of Americans who could agree on where the separation should lie, and like most things, it's the loudest people who should talk the least.

And Niner, not ignoring you, just going to work and don't have time right now to type an adequate response.

(10-02-2012 03:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: I dont even care if its preferential. If Hindus want to put a shrine in a park on a holy day then let them. I dislike the antagonism that many secularist have.

I don't either, but I have to give them a little leeway due to the antagonism that non-secularists portray the average christian to have towards a secular government. But I do truly believe that there is a commanding majority of Americans who could agree on where the separation should lie, and like most things, it's the loudest people who should talk the least.

And Niner, not ignoring you, just going to work and don't have time right now to type an adequate response.

So long as the secularist hang their hat on Bill Mahar and think instantly that they are smarter than people of faith the conversation will go no where...

(10-01-2012 08:31 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  It is this mindset, the "Opposition is always wrong and must be demonized" mindset is what I refer to, and what I compare.

Kinda like claiming pro-lifers are "waging war on women"?