Modern Christianity is a tapestry of diverse traditions stretched taut between the polarities of unwavering biblical literalism and unbridled modern revisionism.

1. Does it benefit either society, OR Christianity, to revise the tenets of the faith, in order to accommodate each new generation ?

2. Or should it remain unchanged; in the manner it was given to the people by Jesus ?

3. Would Christianity lose respect for changing ?

4. What affect do you think either would have on the world ?

REQUEST: If you hate Christianity and Christians, don't bother posting. I don't want to hear it...save it for another forum.

Anyone else is welcome to post their thoughts.

1. No, if god was all knowing there would be no need to revise.

2. Yes.

3. It has respect?..the pedophile priests sorta ruined any iota of respect it may of once had.

4. Not a lot.

Pedophilia is a SIN...we all sin. Sin is not a blemish on the face of Christianity, it is a blemish on the face of humankind.

Christianity is the faith that those sins will be forgiven, upon belief in the salvation of Christ.

Priest's are Catholic, and their Christianity can and should be up for scrutiny. (I am not saying simply because they are Catholic, I am pointing out that anyone that needs to add religion to the equation of life even AFTER they know Christ has got some issues)

Thank you for your response.

I think it's unfortunate that the message of Christianity gets confused with the method of its delivery, i.e. the structures and rituals of the religion itself. Christ's message to people was formed in a way that he knew would be easy for them to understand in the society that existed 2000 years ago. He didn't choose intellectual vehicles, or abstract metaphysical descriptions about spirituality, he used metaphors and simple stories that he knew people would understand.

Unfortunately the language and scriptures that the message got recorded in have become objects of worship in their own right, and haven't adapted to a changing world. The reason why Christianity is becoming less and less popular is because people find it less and less relevent today, mass is a ritual that most people go to from a sense of obligation, not because it improves the quality of their life in any way. But if Christianity doesn't adapt, it's numbers will just keep on falling, and since the need for religion is something that comes from within people, sooner or later a spiritual system that is clear and relevent to people will replace it.

1. Does it benefit either society, OR Christianity, to revise the tenets of the faith, in order to accommodate each new generation ?

-- Christianity, yes. The reason is that if people believe in it all literally like they once did, it wouldn't have many believers left soon enough. It's already losing its place as it is.

2. Or should it remain unchanged; in the manner it was given to the people by Jesus ?

Christianity wasn't given by Jesus. A philosophy was given by Jesus, based on Judaism, almost entirely in parables. Christianity is a human construct, sometimes noble, often flawed.

3. Would Christianity lose respect for changing ?

No.



4. What affect do you think either would have on the world ?

None, really. I don't think Christianity will continue its reign for too much longer (centuries, maybe).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Christianity, it is a blemish on the face of humankind.

Well said.

quote:Originally posted by Fuck:

Well said.

I don't care how true you think that is. Misquoting somebody is pathetic; die cunt.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

I don't care how true you think that is. Misquoting somebody is pathetic; die cunt.

"Ad hominem attacks just take away from the rather decent points you make because we have to sift through your shit to find your diamonds."

Being a hypocrite is pathetic; die cunt.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

"Ad hominem attacks just take away from the rather decent points you make because we have to sift through your shit to find your diamonds."

Being a hypocrite is pathetic; die cunt.

Rust, sit down and shut the fuck up. I'm not making an ad hominem attack to take away from some sort of a point; that mother fucker Fuck misquoted someone on purpose...that's not cool. Respect, bitch.

So, in other words, you are saying that he committed an argumentative fallacy, at which point you decided to respond with a respective fallacy, in the form of an ‘ad-hominem abusive’ statement? Thank you.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that you are "making an ad hominem attack to take away from some sort of a point", and did so just now. I'd also like to point out that these other ad-hominems really do add to your "street cred"..."bitch".

I repeat the original statement; "being a hypocrite is pathetic; die cunt".

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-18-2005).]

Christ's Christianity=Good

Modern Christianity=Wierd old guys in robes that like alterboys...

Luther had it right.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Modern Christianity is a tapestry of diverse traditions stretched taut between the polarities of unwavering biblical literalism and unbridled modern revisionism.

1. Does it benefit either society, OR Christianity, to revise the tenets of the faith, in order to accommodate each new generation ?

No

2. Or should it remain unchanged; in the manner it was given to the people by Jesus ?

I think we should read the closest to what the authors wrote. That means read the KJV version. Dont change that.

However if we take a literal stance to everything in the bible, we really wouldnt hhave much of a religion. We have to figure out what each verse means in order to apply it to each situation in the manner God would have it done.

So no, it must be changed only in interpretation. Imo, interpretation that is in accordance to the rest of the bible in all aspects.

3. Would Christianity lose respect for changing ?

of course it wuld. nobody respects a two faced politician do they?

4. What affect do you think either would have on the world ?

Well we wouldnt be any affect on worldevents anymore. We would just be as hollow traditionalists as the orthodox Jews and Catholics (no offense to either group)

REQUEST: If you hate Christianity and Christians, don't bother posting. I don't want to hear it...save it for another forum.

Anyone else is welcome to post their thoughts.

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:



Luther had it right.

Lutherans are "watered-down Catholics". http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

?? Not the modern day Lutherans who have fucked it up again, he managed to cut 90% of the bs out of the church. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote: I think we should read the closest to what the authors wrote. That means read the KJV version. Dont change that.



HUH? WTF? please,please, please tell me you're joking...

and digi,

seeing as christianity as changed beyond recognition since the time of the apostles i hardly think any more changes will make any difference.

almost none of the present doctrines are rooted in christ's teachings or are even cannonical.

quote:2. Or should it remain unchanged; in the manner it was given to the people by Jesus ?



which in itself is the problem.even after some 150 years of serious study , its still very hard to find any real certainties as to what exactly jesus taught.

and those few things which are fairly certainly 'vox jesu' are unpalateable to most modern christians.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

So, in other words, you are saying that he committed an argumentative fallacy, at which point you decided to respond with a respective fallacy, in the form of an **8216;ad-hominem abusive**8217; statement? Thank you.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that you are "making an ad hominem attack to take away from some sort of a point", and did so just now. I'd also like to point out that these other ad-hominems really do add to your "street cred"..."bitch".

I repeat the original statement; "being a hypocrite is pathetic; die cunt".



Rust, you may be a pro at logic, but you have a shaky starting ground; let me explain.

Fuck simply misquotes DS and turns words against her...no point is made. Me, myself, have no specific point to make, I just dislike people who misquote, the impact of which I don't give the slightest shit about, so MY ad hominem attack does not detract from any sort of point I'm making, as I'm not making one. As an observer, you cannot be sure what my reasoning behind an ad hom attack is; you tried to call bullshit on it, and were wrong. And go ahead and reply to this again if you wish, but I explained myself thoroughly enough as to enlighten yourself on how I wasn't even making a point; hence escaping a hypocritical situation by insulting someone.

Now, notice in this post, the one in which I attempt to make a point, I use no ad hominem attacks. When I'm just insulting somebody, of course I'll use ad hom attacks, but that's because I'm not arguing, simply observing something. (That observation being that Fuck is a cunt worthy of death.)

[This message has been edited by Hexadecimal (edited 04-18-2005).]

Also, what's so bad about hypocrisy? Does a single fucking person alive today practice what they preach exactly? You find me somebody who isn't a hypocrit and I'll produce a unicorn.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

You find me somebody who isn't a hypocrit and I'll produce a unicorn.

As for the post I think Christ's Christinaity would be spectacular, but instead we have 2000 years of people putting their own spin on it and claiming it to be "infallable".

Christ seems like a really nice guy who just happens to be vastly misunderstood.

Stupid rumors.

1. This is a trick question isn't it? Christianity needs to change but not to accomodate new generations as you put it but humankind of every generation. And "accomodate" is a poor choice for a word but you make your point that you do not approve of change.

2. If it remains unchanged it is no way in the manner it was given by Jesus, that's the problem.

3. Quite the opposite, it may gain some.

4. It depends on the change but since at this point any change is good, I'd say a good affect.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Rust, you may be a pro at logic, but you have a shaky starting ground; let me explain.

Fuck simply misquotes DS and turns words against her...no point is made. Me, myself, have no specific point to make, I just dislike people who misquote, the impact of which I don't give the slightest shit about, so MY ad hominem attack does not detract from any sort of point I'm making, as I'm not making one. As an observer, you cannot be sure what my reasoning behind an ad hom attack is; you tried to call bullshit on it, and were wrong. And go ahead and reply to this again if you wish, but I explained myself thoroughly enough as to enlighten yourself on how I wasn't even making a point; hence escaping a hypocritical situation by insulting someone.

Now, notice in this post, the one in which I attempt to make a point, I use no ad hominem attacks. When I'm just insulting somebody, of course I'll use ad hom attacks, but that's because I'm not arguing, simply observing something. (That observation being that Fuck is a cunt worthy of death.)

The reasons behind YOUR ad-hominem attacks, are as relevant as MY reasons for MY ad-hominem attacks.

The whole point of my post being to point out your hypocrisy. If I am somehow wrong because I "as an observer, cannot be sure what your reasoning behind the ad hom attack was" then the same would apply to you and therefore your reply in the other thread (about my usage of ad-hominem) would be moot!

Either you are a hypocrite for using ad-hominem while at the same time being against them when I use them, or you nullify your previous points about my use of ad-hominem, since you 'as an observer, cannot be sure what my reasoning behind the ad hom attack was'.

Which one is it?

quote:Also, what's so bad about hypocrisy? Does a single fucking person alive today practice what they preach exactly? You find me somebody who isn't a hypocrit and I'll produce a unicorn.

Fallacy. Argumentum Ad Populum.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Also, what's so bad about hypocrisy?

Nothing, I agree. Anyone who thinks that they're not a hypocrite is a fool. It's such an engrained daily habit, that it'd be impossible to be human without it. All we can do is actively try to curb our hypocritism.

"I'd rather be a hypocrite than be wrong"

Whether we are all hypocrites or not is irrelevant. In fact, if we take that strawman as relevant, it would make his argument moot, as I am arguing that he is a hypocrite, thus proving me correct!

RUST'S PONY SHOW CONTINUES

In this thread alone he has used the words:

~ Moot

~ Hypocrite

~ Ad Hominem

~ Strawman

~ Irrelevant

RUST -

Now please try and prove to me how I was so off the mark in saying that your Pony Show is getting old...it is the same thing, every single time you post.

This is exactly why I was encouraging Argon NOT to argue with you, because this is exactly what you will do...and it ends up being pointless every time.

*raises an eyebrow*

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-19-2005).]

And thanks for hijacking my thread (Rust)...

As usual, you have nothing productive to offer for a debate in the form of religious perspective.

You simply exist here on Totse to try and prove how much smarter you are than everyone else...

You could care less about religious debate.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Now please try and prove to me how I was so off the mark in saying that your Pony Show is getting old...it is the same thing, every single time you post.

This is exactly why I was encouraging Argon NOT to argue with you, because this is exactly what you will do...and it ends up being pointless every time.

*raises an eyebrow*



If you do not like my choice of words, you are completely free to ignore them.

The importance of my words, is not the diversity of my choice in them, but the truthfulness of those word choices. Either argue that what I labeled as "moot" was not "moot" or kindly shut up.

quote:And thanks for hijacking my thread (Rust)...

As usual, you have nothing productive to offer for a debate in the form of religious perspective.

You simply exist here on Totse to try and prove how much smarter you are than everyone else...

You could care less about religious debate.



He posted his hypocritical statement in this thread, and therefore I replied in this thread. Had he posted such a statement in any other thread, and had I seen it, I would have posted in that thread instead! That it had the unfortunate result of it being "hijacked", yes, and I am sorry for that, but please don't try to paint this such a melodramatic tone.

P.S. I did not provide any meaningful religious debate in this thread, because you asked me not to. Of course, that little fact does not get in the way of you insulting me.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-20-2005).]

quote:Posted by Rust:

If you do not like my choice of words, you are completely free to ignore them.

The importance of my words, is not the diversity of my choice in them, but the truthfulness of those word choices. Either argue that what I labeled as "moot" was not "moot" or kindly shut up.

I wasn't talking about the "importance" of your words. It is clear that only YOU are fascinated by how important you have deemed your words to be.

My point was that it is a tired tactic, and nobody appreciates it.

You tried to claim that you paraded no such Pony Show through the halls of Totse in a previous thread, and I was pointing out here that I was right. You do.

I could care less if what the other poster said to you was moot or not. That is not the point, and I have no issue with that.

What I do have an issue with is your perception that everything anyone else ever says that isn't alligned with YOUR opinion is automatically deemed worthless, irrelevant, and moot. This is evidenced by the ridiculous amount of times you have used these words to ridicule people you consider enemies.

You have a problem. Deal with it.

quote:Posted by Rust:

He posted his hypocritical statement in this thread, and therefore I replied in this thread. Had he posted such a statement in any other thread, and had I seen it, I would have posted in that thread instead! That it had the unfortunate result of it being "hijacked", yes, and I am sorry for that, but please don't try to paint this such a melodramatic tone.

P.S. I did not provide any meaningful religious debate in this thread, because you asked me not to. Of course, that little fact does not get in the way of you insulting me.

How have I insulted you ? By calling you out for being the jerk that you are ? THAT can be considered an insult, but the rest of what I have said wasn't. If you are insulted by my honest perception of your tyrannical behavior, then it is with yourself that you have a bone to pick, not me.

I certainly wasn't insinuating that you were hijacking my thread on purpose. I was just making sure you knew how much I appreciated that you had done it to mine.

The reason you didn't post anything in the form of RELIGIOUS debate is because you DON'T. I think that it is a possibility that you don't have much to say on the subject (for whatever reason), but that you would still like to argue, so you slyly sidestep the religious debate, and go straight for the religious PERSON...attempting to tear them apart, as if this somehow justifies your contempt for any given religion.

It is pretty funny that you hate Christianity...if you don't believe in it, why do you care enough to exert such an emotion on it ?

Apology accepted...I don't really care about the hijacking, but I DO care about you being annoying in my thread for no reason.

YOU think you have a reason, but that doesn't make it a GOOD one.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I wasn't talking about the "importance" of your words. It is clear that only YOU are fascinated by how important you have deemed your words to be.

My point was that it is a tired tactic, and nobody appreciates it.

You tried to claim that you paraded no such Pony Show through the halls of Totse in a previous thread, and I was pointing out here that I was right. You do.

I could care less if what the other poster said to you was moot or not. That is not the point, and I have no issue with that.

What I do have an issue with is your perception that everything anyone else ever says that isn't alligned with YOUR opinion is automatically deemed worthless, irrelevant, and moot. This is evidenced by the ridiculous amount of times you have used these words to ridicule people you consider enemies.

You have a problem. Deal with it.

The point still stands. You believing it is a "tired" tactic, directly speaks to your like or dislike of my word choices. Again, if you do not like them, then please kindly shut up, as I don't believe anyone here wants to know this, and moreover, it simply serves to insult, and to further "hijack" your thread.

quote:How have I insulted you ? By calling you out for being the jerk that you are ? THAT can be considered an insult, but the rest of what I have said wasn't. If you are insulted by my honest perception of your tyrannical behavior, then it is with yourself that you have a bone to pick, not me.

To which I'll then gladly say that you should have a "bone to pick" with yourself whne I called you a pretentious whore. Why did you not apply this terrible lack of logic when I called you that? Because YOU believed you're not a pretentious whore? But of course, I must believe I am a jerk... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



quote:

The reason you didn't post anything in the form of RELIGIOUS debate is because you DON'T. I think that it is a possibility that you don't have much to say on the subject (for whatever reason), but that you would still like to argue, so you slyly sidestep the religious debate, and go straight for the religious PERSON...attempting to tear them apart, as if this somehow justifies your contempt for any given religion.





Completely false. I have replied to many a discussion on this board. That you do not like them, or that they deal with a materialist view-point, does not mean they are not relevant to a religious discussion, which they are. This is quite simply a lie on your part.

quote:

It is pretty funny that you hate Christianity...if you don't believe in it, why do you care enough to exert such an emotion on it ?

I have already answered this many times, yet you keep bringing it up.

I do not like Christianity since it serves to promote illogical and un-scientific thinking, thus it completely serves my opinion of Christianity to actively speak against it.

quote:

YOU think you have a reason, but that doesn't make it a GOOD one.

Of course, what makes MY reason good, is YOUR opinion of it... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Posted by Rust:

To which I'll then gladly say that you should have a "bone to pick" with yourself whne I called you a pretentious whore. Why did you not apply this terrible lack of logic when I called you that? Because YOU believed you're not a pretentious whore? But of course, I must believe I am a jerk...

So, my whore-ishness is blatantly obvious by my posts through a computer terminal ?!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA !

Yes.

And I thank you for ignoring the argument.

I didn't ignore it.

I am well aware of it.

Simply because I don't want to play your petty game of semantics (which you love dearly), doesn't mean I ignored it, or am incapable of replying to it.

You know very well that I am.

I just don't care enough.

My point has been made.

How can you possibly know how much sex I have or do not have ?

That is still incredibly funny to me.

*laughs*

Beside that fact, how is it relevant ? You being a jerk on Totse is definitely relevant, but how many people I have slept with ISN'T.

The point flew over your head completely.

You said that I should have a "bone to pick" with myself, because YOU insulted me, but conveniently do not apply that terrible logic when you are insulted.

Whether you are a whore is completely irrelevant, as my point was the hypocrisy and stupidity of that statement, which you have made so obviously clear by not even trying to argue it further.

P.S. Read the definition of "ignore".

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-20-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The point flew over your head completely.

You said that I should have a "bone to pick" with myself, because YOU insulted me, but conveniently do not apply that terrible logic when you are insulted.

Whether you are a whore is completely irrelevant, as my point was the hypocrisy and stupidity of that statement, which you have made so obviously clear by not even trying to argue it further.

No, that point did not fly over my head. I got it the first time. Just because I didn't address it, doesn't mean I didn't "get" it. *shakes head*

I said you have a bone to pick with yourself, because it is YOURSELF that gives us all the impression that you are a jerk.

I have given no such indication about my sex life, and therefore your assertion is refuted.

Liberal atheist vs. the born again christian watch the sparks fly.

Digital_Savior: g/j hijacking your own thread.

Rust: Strawman. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)

I just got done with my english class, and now it looks like totse is the english class.

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:

Liberal atheist vs. the born again christian watch the sparks fly.



I'll bring the popcorn.

I think it should be kept how it was given. Why? Because those who read the bible, trying to grasp the concept with the corrupt mind, will NOT understand it. Those who read the bible, with the spirit, and pray to God for wisdom and understanding, and actually grasp the true, divine meaning, will understand it.

Mark 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

When I was a youth, I thought that Christianity had no redeeming qualities. But, now, I find that it has many parallels with Buddhism, such as the above passage.

"They may see and not preceive" seems to imply that we must open our minds (our change our perception to see the true nature of things. But, I think where Christianity and other religions go "wrong" (for lack of a better word) is taking what is said too literally. But I'm getting side-tracked.

More on point, I found this article, Where Are The Good Christians?

The fanatics and nutjobs now running the show sure give honest believers a bad name (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/04/06/notes040605.DTL).



"They are the decent Christians. They are the calm, morally progressive, compassionate, open-hearted Jesus-loving folk who don't really give a damn for archaic church dogma or pious noise or sanctimonious candlelight vigils, for repressing women or bashing gays or slamming Islam and, in fact, turned to Christianity precisely because they believe these things are abhorrent and wrong and, well, anti-Christian...

And they discuss stuff that sounds much closer to mystical or cosmological or otherwise paganistic energy work than the narrow, spittle-filled believe-in-Jesus-or-burn-in-hell angles of approach you keep hearing about and that tend to slash at your heart and insult your soul."



I'd like to hear what you guys think of this article. I agree with a lot of what is said, but I think he is sill too harsh on the "other" Christians in there, due to their political views.

PS-I had to drop out of discussions here a couple months ago due to the ailing health of my grandparants, so I apologize if I've failed to answer some questions that were directed at me at the time. I hope nobody thought I was ignoring them! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



[This message has been edited by Social Junker (edited 04-22-2005).]

Rust you know you would be a lot smarter if you weren't emotionally retarded.

I mean that in the nicest way possible.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

"I'd rather be a hypocrite than be wrong"

I don't know if you're saying that to back me, or insult me...but I do agree with that sentiment.

I still don't believe I entered into hypocrisy though; what's wrong with an insult if that is your sole intention? I wasn't attacking Fuck's argument...for all you guys know, I may agree with Fuck's general sentiment...I just insulted him for misquoting, being as I fulfilled my intent, I didn't detract from any point, therefor I did NOT do the same thing Rust did. (I LOVE ad-hom attacks so long as there is no debate going on)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, that point did not fly over my head. I got it the first time. Just because I didn't address it, doesn't mean I didn't "get" it. *shakes head*

I said you have a bone to pick with yourself, because it is YOURSELF that gives us all the impression that you are a jerk.

I have given no such indication about my sex life, and therefore your assertion is refuted.

No. What gives you the impression that I am a "jerk" is your opinion, just as what gives me the impression that you are a whore, is my opinion.

Your claim is therefore as valid as mine. Thus, if I must have a bone to pick with myself because you think that I am a jerk, then you must have a bone to pick with yourself because I think that you're a whore. As you can see, the point did fly over your head.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:



I still don't believe I entered into hypocrisy though; what's wrong with an insult if that is your sole intention? I wasn't attacking Fuck's argument...for all you guys know, I may agree with Fuck's general sentiment...I just insulted him for misquoting, being as I fulfilled my intent, I didn't detract from any point, therefor I did NOT do the same thing Rust did. (I LOVE ad-hom attacks so long as there is no debate going on)

Because it is YOUR opinion whether or not I was using an ad-hominem attack to "detract" from the debate, just like it is MY opinion of whether you were doing it here.

You either allow the third-party observer to decide whether the ad-hominem was used to detract, or the initiator of the ad-hominem.

Which one is it? If I, as the observer, decide, then you were detracting from the argument. If YOU, as the initiator of the ad-hominem, decides, then I as the initiator of the ad-hominem in the other thread decide as well, hence your point in that thread was moot, since I do not consider what I did to detract from anything.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Rust you know you would be a lot smarter if you weren't emotionally retarded.

I mean that in the nicest way possible.

Ohhh that's right.... Hmm yeah keep following me around... Oh yeah

baby, you know I like that... keep making those witty replies...

ahh!

uhh!

...aahhhh...

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:

Liberal atheist vs. the born again christian watch the sparks fly.

Digital_Savior: g/j hijacking your own thread.

Rust: Strawman. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)

I just got done with my english class, and now it looks like totse is the english class.

That site was actually a very interesting read. Thanks.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Fuck simply misquotes DS and turns words against her...no point is made.

*waits for further investigative reports of this mysterious event*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I didn't ignore it.

I am well aware of it.

You know very well that I am.

I just don't care enough.

My point has been made.

Well, how very nice and one sentency of you. I suppose you wouldn't happen to have any grey poupon, you friggin carpetmuncher

[This message has been edited by Fuck (edited 04-23-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

No. What gives you the impression that I am a "jerk" is your opinion, just as what gives me the impression that you are a whore, is my opinion.

Your claim is therefore as valid as mine. Thus, if I must have a bone to pick with myself because you think that I am a jerk, then you must have a bone to pick with yourself because I think that you're a whore. As you can see, the point did fly over your head.

Sorry, but everyone else here has already made it clear that they perceive you to be a jerk as well...it's unanimous.

I doubt anyone here would assert such an opinion of my sexual tendencies, since that cannot be evidenced here.

You're still a jerk, and your claim that I am a whore is unfounded.

Take your licks like a man.

Sheesh.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

I don't know if you're saying that to back me, or insult me...but I do agree with that sentiment.

I still don't believe I entered into hypocrisy though; what's wrong with an insult if that is your sole intention? I wasn't attacking Fuck's argument...for all you guys know, I may agree with Fuck's general sentiment...I just insulted him for misquoting, being as I fulfilled my intent, I didn't detract from any point, therefor I did NOT do the same thing Rust did. (I LOVE ad-hom attacks so long as there is no debate going on)



It wasn't directed at you or anyone for that matter. It's just my personal belief on hypocracy.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Sorry, but everyone else here has already made it clear that they perceive you to be a jerk as well...it's unanimous.



So? If the majority of people here believed you were a whore that would make you one?

Truth is not democratic.

quote:

I doubt anyone here would assert such an opinion of my sexual tendencies, since that cannot be evidenced here.

They do, as I am someone here. That I am in them minority does not refute the fact that ultimately it is as much of an opinion as is your belief that I am a jerk.

Thus making your statement that I should have a "bone to pick" with myself because YOU believe I'm jerk, as valid as ME saying that YOU have a bone to pick with yourself because I think that you are a whore.

As I showed, you conviniently do not apply the same logic you use when you insult me, when you're insulted.

quote:

You're still a jerk, and your claim that I am a whore is unfounded.



It is as founded as me being a jerk, seeing as both are opinions.

Rust why, in your opinion, do you seem to be always fighting with people on here, in whatever forum you're in? Is it because we are all evil henchmen sent from the devil to persecute you, we can't handle your vastly superior intelligence, or we all have cooties?

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Rust why, in your opinion, do you seem to be always fighting with people on here, in whatever forum you're in? Is it because we are all evil henchmen sent from the devil to persecute you, we can't handle your vastly superior intelligence, or we all have cooties?

Ohhh that's right.... Hmm yeah keep following me around... Oh yeah

baby, you know I like that... keep making those witty replies...

ahh!

uhh!

...aahhhh...

[B]Modern Christianity is a tapestry of diverse traditions stretched taut between the polarities of unwavering biblical literalism and unbridled modern revisionism.

1. Does it benefit either society, OR Christianity, to revise the tenets of the faith, in order to accommodate each new generation ?

It certainly doesn't benifit Christianity, as for society, to be truthful, I don't think it does.

You tend to end up with:

1. Far left churches that all but endorse activities that even many non-believers would find completely repulsive

and

2. Far right, nutcase Assembly of God Churches that all but discard chartity, believing in "material blessings" for the faithfull.

as in - if you're a christian and you're rich, it's because god likes you - why should you give stuff away?

*sigh*

2. Or should it remain unchanged; in the manner it was given to the people by Jesus ?

Assuming that Christianity is completely valid, changing it to fit the whim of the moment would be pretty stupid.

3. Would Christianity lose respect for changing ?

Once again, assuming it's absolutely true, any change would be a step backward, so yes.

I suppose it might be possible that the current form somehow might be 90% right, but we read between the lines in the future or something, but that seems silly, since one of the major things ABOUT christianity is that it claims to hold the ENTIRE truth.

Its like... catch 22... I think.



4. What affect do you think either would have on the world ?

The Change in Christianity has, quite frankly, sucked.

I think the world would probably be a much better place if Christianity had been completely unchanged, even if it isn't true.



I've probably answered these weird, but meh.

Dammit Rust, this was looking to be an interesting thread - can you PLEASE have this argument elsewhere?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Ohhh that's right.... Hmm yeah keep following me around... Oh yeah

baby, you know I like that... keep making those witty replies...

ahh!

uhh!

...aahhhh...





Oh OK, so it's just because you can't vent your homosexual fantasies, fair enough. I thought taking it up the ass from your Dad would be enough for you though.

Hahahhaha.

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

Dammit Rust, this was looking to be an interesting thread - can you PLEASE have this argument elsewhere?

I already explained why I made the initial post, a post which apparently did not hinder your ability to keep replying to the subject, as such I don't see why your complaint is at all warranted.

The rests of the posts I cannot be faulted for since I did not know I was going to:

1. Have to explain myself.

2. Deal with childish trolls such as imperfectcircle.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-25-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:



Oh OK, so it's just because you can't vent your homosexual fantasies, fair enough. I thought taking it up the ass from your Dad would be enough for you though.

Ohhh that's right.... Hmm yeah keep following me around... Oh yeah

baby, you know I like that... keep making those witty replies...

ahh!

uhh!

...aahhhh...

I rest my case.

Thank you for your post, dearestnight_falcon.

Your answers are fair, and include both modern day and early Christianity.

I agree...it shouldn't have changed, and shouldn't change, still.

I think it loses respect everyday, because wishy-washy Christians compromise their faith, and thus become a detriment to it.

I also think that if Jesus were here today, he'd be mightily embarassed at most Christians...including myself.

Luckily for us he chose grace and mercy over law and wrath !

I also appreciate imperfectcircle's input, at the beginning of this thread.

Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, and that not one jot or scribble would change places in the law unto the end of time. The early Church was making circumcisions and conversions to Judaism and observing the oral law. It was Paul of Tarsus who removed all the Judaistic aspects from the faith, to make it more attractive to gentiles. He was an apostate by all of the standards that Jesus set forth. He detracted from the Messiah's goal of bringing the world into observance of God's law. Today most Christians only recognise Ten Commandments...there are 613 (http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm).

Jesus basically repeated the law. He was the fulfillment of it, in that he took the place of it in our lives, as far as salvation is concerned.

We no longer heed the Law of Moses as a means of gaining salvation. We heed the Law of Christ which is basically the Law of Moses, though a watered down version focusing ONLY on redemption instead of legalism.

Paul did nothing to detract from the Law of Moses. He understood the teaching of Jesus to include gentiles, which the Law of Moses did not. The issues with the laws regarding circumcision and unclean food became a stumbling block the separated the Church between people who wanted to hold on to the Law of Moses, and therefore exclude gentiles from the salvation of Christ, and those who understood the love of Christ (Paul).

Peter and James were debating with him on this point, and they all realized that the law was LESS important than love. Christ taught love, above all else.

So, they decided that gentiles did not have to live by the Law of Moses, in order to keep them coming to church, and offer them the same salvation that the Jews had.

I am not sure what your point was, but I hope I clarified that a little.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Jesus basically repeated the law. He was the fulfillment of it, in that he took the place of it in our lives, as far as salvation is concerned.I know this goes back to Jeremiah 31, but I don't think when the Prophet said God would write his law upon our hearts and in our minds he meant that his having done so would be so we wouldn't have to follow it anymore.

quote:We no longer heed the Law of Moses as a means of gaining salvation. We heed the Law of Christ which is basically the Law of Moses, though a watered down version focusing ONLY on redemption instead of legalism.Paul himself states that the purpose of the previous covenants, the purpose of the law, was to make us aware of sin. Then he goes on to say that accepting Christ makes you a SLAVE TO RIGHTEOUSNESS! How is righteousness defined? By not sinning, i.e. not transgressing the law. It's not just love thy neighbour. Christ walked all over the place with his disciples, celebrating holidays, following commandments. Yes, sometimes the Pharisies would come by and criticise his following of the law, but he would say that God grants dispensation in times of need and cite the actions of a biblical Tzadik, King, or Prophet who did the same. Why did he bother with self-justification for his interpretation of the law if he intended to throw the whole thing out? Because his purpose was not to abolish the law. He wanted to temper it with love. Yes, he criticised the pharisies for their litigiousness, but he didn't criticise the law itself.

quote:Paul did nothing to detract from the Law of Moses. He understood the teaching of Jesus to include gentiles, which the Law of Moses did not.The previous covenants DID include gentiles. The Law of Noah sets down the basic commandments for all mankind, and it's quite easy to follow. Just seven of them. The point of Jesus' covenant was to bring the rest of mankind into the law. To give them the same degree of responsibility that the Jews already had. To be closer to God and to follow his commandments. That is why the early church was making the gentiles ger toshav and ger tzedek rather than simply handing them a ribbon that says 'you're saved, go on about your pagan practises.'

quote:The issues with the laws regarding circumcision and unclean food became a stumbling block the separated the Church between people who wanted to hold on to the Law of Moses, and therefore exclude gentiles from the salvation of Christ, and those who understood the love of Christ (Paul).

Peter and James were debating with him on this point, and they all realized that the law was LESS important than love. Christ taught love, above all else.Christ also taught the law, he was a Rabbi. And the law IS love. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy resources." Loving God and loving those around you as you love yourself IS following the law. The problem is that if you redact the law, which they later did, you leave the religion open to being stretched, you leave it open to idolatry, you leave it open to people substituting their own doctrines in the void where the law was. You allow it to lose its essential Yiddishkeit, its je ne sais quois. And gee...guess what happened...the religion was overrun by gentiles who substituted their pagan holidays in the void of non-observance left by the ones actually commanded by God. The Church came up with its own law, "substituting for the Law of God, the precepts of man." Just as Jesus had chastised the Pharasies. It instituted idolatry, the worship of Saints as a callback to their pagan pantheon, the worship of Mary as a goddess, and purged those who still followed the Law! The root of this apostacy was Paul's insistence on throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

quote:So, they decided that gentiles did not have to live by the Law of Moses, in order to keep them coming to church, and offer them the same salvation that the Jews had....and look what happened...

quote:I am not sure what your point was, but I hope I clarified that a little.You didn't have to clarify it for me. I understand what modern Christianity preaches. I just don't agree with it. I can understand your wanting to defend Paul, and his epistles, but you must realise that the apostles were far from infallible. They had it right at first, but gave up their practises in favour of what amounts to commercialism. Jesus never preached that following God was easy. I agree with Paul that faith leads to works, that faith is the first work and the ultimate justification, but the works that follow are defined in the Law. If we are to become slaves to righteousness through faith in Christ, we are to become slaves to God's law. History is written by the victors, and similarly so was the Christian cannon, which wasn't clearly defined until hundreds of years later. It is widely believed to have been redacted, changed around, and questions about its dependability have been a challenge to Christian believers for centuries. After the testaments to Jesus' life, the cannon drifts away from the message and begins to reflect theology developed by the apostles themselves instead of what Jesus taught. Romans just doesn't have it right. I know that's a controversial thing to say, but no less an authority on the doctrine of sola scriptura than Martin Luther said "Christ is the Master; the Scriptures are only the servant. The true way to test all the Books is to see whether they work the will of Christ or not. No Book which does not preach Christ can be apostolic, though Peter or Paul were its author. And no Book which does preach Christ can fail to be apostolic, although Judas, Ananias, Pilate, or Herod were its author."

The beauty of accepting that Christ was meant to bring us into service of the Law is that we can rely on a far more dependable and stable cannon: that to be found in the Tanakh, where the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings are kept. For faith in his Messiahship, we can rely on Jesus as a historical person, his words and teachings in the Gospels which record his life and the evidence of his impact on the world, which changed the very numbering of its days to mark his death. Where there are conflicts in the Gospels, for instance the debate over whether it was a census that drove Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem or whether they were already there, they are irrelevent to the message of the Messiah and his bringing the world into the Law and into the love of God.

If the apostacy that threw out the law had never occurred, Christianity would have remained a part of Judaism, considered a legitimate and respected part of the elder faith, and the many conflicts between the two religions would never have happened. Today there is a portion of the Chabad Lubavitcher sect of Hassidic Judaism that believes their last Rebbe (who died in '94) was the Messiah, that his death was not really a death and that he is merely hiding somewhere beyond reality, waiting to come back and begin the Messianic Age and bring humanity into observance of the Law (i.e. one of the main duties of a Messiah). These people are not widely believed, even in their own sect, but then again, they haven't seen their Rebbe come back from the dead.

Imagine the popularity Christianity could have garnered for the Messianic cause if it had remained in the Law. The number of witnesses, the number of believers, with that wonderful message that resonated with Jew and gentile alike, could have brought so many closer to God, and it still can! Legitimacy can be restored to Christianity by rejecting the pagan inventions that plague everything from its calendar of holidays to its official cannon. Christian apologists often stumble over the break between the early church and the theology of Paul which led causally into the Medieval Catholic Church. Jewish apologists often can't completely rebut the life of Jesus and the message he spread, and it peals away Jews from the faith to this day. A rethinking of Christianity to win back the legitimacy it once enjoyed would solve both problems.

At any rate, I'm the product of an interfaith marriage, so I'm nuts, but that seems to be the only way Christianity makes sense from my point of view. Take what I said with a grain of salt if you like. There is currently something very close to what I'm talking about going on in Israel: they have a website here (http://www.netzarim.co.il/).

[This message has been edited by Sephiroth (edited 04-30-2005).]

Bumping to respond later.

Awesome post, Sephiroth.

Bumping for your replying pleasure...[/Ed Sullivan]

Christianity is manmade. Man changes, so should the church.

quote:You allow it to lose its essential Yiddishkeit, its je ne sais quois. And gee...guess what happened...the religion was overrun by gentiles who substituted their pagan holidays in the void of non-observance left by the ones actually commanded by God. The Church came up with its own law, "substituting for the Law of God, the precepts of man." Just as Jesus had chastised the Pharasies. It instituted idolatry, the worship of Saints as a callback to their pagan pantheon, the worship of Mary as a goddess, and purged those who still followed the Law! The root of this apostacy was Paul's insistence on throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

yep..can't really add anything to that. although records show that 'true' davidic christianity did survive for a few hunderd years after paul.

It appears this thread is hiding new replies, because of the forum glitch.

*prods at forum glitch...*