If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Patheos)   Progressive Christian (yes, they exist) lays out case for Evangelical Republicans being guilty of Onanism, and no he isn't talking about when they think of Saint Sarah at night   (patheos.com) divider line 318
    More: Obvious, progressive Christians, Republican, sister-in-law  
•       •       •

3345 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2013 at 2:25 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



318 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-20 10:48:17 AM

abb3w: walkingtall: So that took me all of 25 seconds to get a truer view of Communion than the statement "All Christians have always believed in physically eating Christ and drinking His blood and that is sick to Jews" and that is what I stated was false.

It would seem that you have trouble keeping straight the difference between "All Christians" and "the majority of Christians".


Yes - thank you.
 
2013-08-20 10:48:21 AM
There is some interesting wiggle room in Catholic doctrine via the difference between "physical" and "substantial" (even without getting to surveys of how many believe the doctrine when asked specific questions), but not if you're that sloppy.

LOL. This must be what debating Bill Clinton is like. Technically right is the best right and always leave wiggle room. Unless I missed something, and that is very possible, I was given the assertion that all Christians at all times believe that the bread and wine of Communion physically turns into flesh and blood when we put it in our mouths. I simply disagreed with that assertion on two grounds. One is the actual idea of physically eating actual physical flesh and blood and on a deeper level the entire meaning of communion itself which was misconstrued. Maybe things got off track I don't know. Hard to debate the semantics of communion to an audience that does not even understand what it symbolizes. How deep the symbolism goes has been the debate throughout the ages. That is a interesting bit of history. What communion means has never changed. At least that I know of.
 
2013-08-20 10:58:21 AM

abb3w: You might find tracking down the old PBS miniseries The Ring of Truth interesting


I know about this series. I have had enough of science patting itself on the back at how impartial and self correcting it is. More then I care to stomach. That is another debate for another time.
 
2013-08-20 11:22:44 AM

walkingtall: LOL. This must be what debating Bill Clinton is like. Technically right is the best right and always leave wiggle room. Unless I missed something, and that is very possible, I was given the assertion that all Christians at all times believe that the bread and wine of Communion physically turns into flesh and blood when we put it in our mouths.


No, You were given the assertion that the majority of Christians who have ever lived believed it. Somehow, in your mind that became "all Christians who ever lived believed it at all times ever." Even after abb3w pointed out that your misunderstanding, you just repeated it.

Not only that, but that claim was made in direct response to your patently ridiculous, and staggeringly ignorant claim that "No Christian has ever believed that they are dining on the actual physical blood and flesh of Christ during Communion."

 To summarize:

Fool: "No Christian has ever believed that"
Farker: "What? Most Christians throughout history have believed exactly that. Here's a link to prove it"
Normal Person: "Look at that. Apparently most Christians throughout history really have beleived that. I guess I was wrong"
Fool: "Yeah, well even your link says that not every Christian believes it, so your claim that every Christian everywhere for all eternity has always believed it for every second of their lives was obviously wrong. And this is just another demonstration of your ignorance of Christianity"

And you wonder why you are greeted with derision instead of discussion?
 
2013-08-20 11:29:42 AM

walkingtall: Prosperity gospel exists and Im certainly not going to defend it. It isn't biblical and it has no weight behind it.


You're discounting the weight of the numbers of American (self-identified) Christians ascribing to it, which appears functionally more similar to a defense of it than an attack. If, as you seem to say, you consider Prosperity Gospel to be a dangerous heresy, and thus a problem for the Church, it would seem that the first step to addressing the problem would be to recognize the exact extent.

walkingtall: What communion means has never changed. At least that I know of.


There's considerable difference in at least parts of what it "means" between Catholic and Protestant creeds -- transubstantiation, transignification, impanation, consubstantiation, memorialism, and so on.

walkingtall: I have had enough of science patting itself on the back at how impartial and self correcting it is.


The series is more about science patting itself on the back on how well the current ideas stand up to testing, whenever anyone bothers. (Contrast Deuteronomy 6:16....)

walkingtall: Unless I missed something, and that is very possible, I was given the assertion that all Christians at all times believe that the bread and wine of Communion physically turns into flesh and blood when we put it in our mouths.


You missed something. Check back through the thread, and re-read the exact claims carefully; it doesn't look like any of the posts have been removed. As I noted, you appear to be confusing majority as universality.
 
2013-08-20 11:46:36 AM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: No, You were given the assertion that the majority of Christians who have ever lived believed it.


Ok I reject the word most or all and I reject the very understanding this premise is made from. That is what I was trying to get across. Sigh...but more word games.

Not only that, but that claim was made in direct response to your patently ridiculous, and staggeringly ignorant claim that "No Christian has ever believed that they are dining on the actual physical blood and flesh of Christ during Communion."

Sigh. This is an argument I never should have waded into. I deeply regret it. Not the first time my big mouth has gotten me in trouble. I am debating deep theology with people with zero understanding of what they are debating. The symbolism of communion and the history of it is simply not something that can be debated with people who don't even understand the entire purpose of communion. I have tried to clarify my points but it has been useless. There are too many quotes for you to pick and choose and completely miss the context and I am fighting a losing battle. Not because I don't understand the issues but because I am fighting the wrong fight. Here is my stance. Communion is designed to symbolize the sacrifice Christ made for us and the fact He went to the Cross and spilled His blood for our benefit. That's it. Nothing else on top of that matters. It is a rabbit trail leading nowhere.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: And you wonder why you are greeted with derision instead of discussion?


Oh I know exactly why I am greeted with derision. I have no illusions to that. I believe in God I believe in Christ and I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Those are the things I stand on every single day when I wake up. They never change. My stance has been the same in every thread I have ever debated.
 
2013-08-20 01:23:51 PM

walkingtall: Ctrl-Alt-Del: No, You were given the assertion that the majority of Christians who have ever lived believed it.

Ok I reject the word most or all and I reject the very understanding this premise is made from. That is what I was trying to get across. Sigh...but more word games.

Not only that, but that claim was made in direct response to your patently ridiculous, and staggeringly ignorant claim that "No Christian has ever believed that they are dining on the actual physical blood and flesh of Christ during Communion."

Sigh. This is an argument I never should have waded into. I deeply regret it. Not the first time my big mouth has gotten me in trouble. I am debating deep theology with people with zero understanding of what they are debating. The symbolism of communion and the history of it is simply not something that can be debated with people who don't even understand the entire purpose of communion. I have tried to clarify my points but it has been useless. There are too many quotes for you to pick and choose and completely miss the context and I am fighting a losing battle. Not because I don't understand the issues but because I am fighting the wrong fight. Here is my stance. Communion is designed to symbolize the sacrifice Christ made for us and the fact He went to the Cross and spilled His blood for our benefit. That's it. Nothing else on top of that matters. It is a rabbit trail leading nowhere.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: And you wonder why you are greeted with derision instead of discussion?

Oh I know exactly why I am greeted with derision. I have no illusions to that. I believe in God I believe in Christ and I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Those are the things I stand on every single day when I wake up. They never change. My stance has been the same in every thread I have ever debated.


When people get understandably annoyed with your willful misinterpretations of their posts, you believe they're greeting you with derision for your belief in God.

You are interpret requests for citations as persecution.

May I suggest that you try again sometime? This time, carefully read other people's posts and respond to what they actually wrote, backing up your arguments with citations. You might be surprised at how informative this kind of discussion can be.
 
2013-08-20 02:15:26 PM

walkingtall: I am debating deep theology with people with zero understanding of what they are debating.


That may be part of your problem.

However, I'm afraid another part is that some few of us may have a significantly better understanding of deep theology, and how it varies between Christian denominations. EG...

walkingtall: Communion is designed to symbolize the sacrifice Christ made for us and the fact He went to the Cross and spilled His blood for our benefit. That's it.


While that may be true from some Protestant standpoints, from the Catholic standpoint (and thus, the doctrine of the numerical majority of the world's Christians), that's NOT it. Communion is not just mere symbol of the sacrifice (though that's part of it), but also a sacramental and causal means by which God conveys inward grace; with transubstantiation (as opposed to mere consubstantiation et cetera) considered essential to that.

walkingtall: Oh I know exactly why I am greeted with derision. I have no illusions to that. I believe in God I believe in Christ and I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.


[Insert cheap shot snark on general reading comprehension.]
 
2013-08-20 03:13:43 PM

Weaver95: Kristoph57: Weaver95: That was a very well written article. Damn shame the lesson is lost on the modern evangelical movement tho.

Someone should compile a list of lessons taught in the bible that are completely lost on modern evangelical movements.

Lessons: the Bible's Good Teachings or LBGT for short.

It's weird that I'm pagan and I know more about the bible than most Christians.


You know, that is a lot more common then you think. I'm essentially pagan in my spiritual beliefs, and whenever I get into religious debates with the local evangelicals, (or my mother-in-law...) my knowledge is significantly better, They don't read the bible, they just do what they're told. I know it's anecdotal, but in my experience people who get out of the religious viewpoint actually look at the religious text on their own and think about the weird contradictory messages and eventually turn away from the belief system. It leaves the person much more knowledgeable than the average sheep.
 
2013-08-20 04:15:55 PM

Alucard1191: I know it's anecdotal, but in my experience people who get out of the religious viewpoint actually look at the religious text on their own and think about the weird contradictory messages and eventually turn away from the belief system.


You might find Altemeyer and Hunsberger's book Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith and Others Abandon Religion to be of interest.

See also the results of the Pew Forum's Religious Knowledge Quiz study.
 
2013-08-20 04:17:34 PM

abb3w: Alucard1191: I know it's anecdotal, but in my experience people who get out of the religious viewpoint actually look at the religious text on their own and think about the weird contradictory messages and eventually turn away from the belief system.

You might find Altemeyer and Hunsberger's book Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith and Others Abandon Religion to be of interest.

See also the results of the Pew Forum's Religious Knowledge Quiz study.


This is why I have you favourited in bright green.
 
2013-08-20 04:56:31 PM

walkingtall: Unless you call Messianic Jews not Jewish.


I call them proselytizing Christians.
/When I'm feeling charitable, I call them confused.

walkingtall: he same communion ceremony exists now that existed then. Whatever weird thing you ascribe to communion then applies now. There are about 250000 American messianic jews and 10-20k Israeli messianic jews and most if not all take communion. You must be very mad at them.


Yeah. No. Saddened, mostly. I feel pity for the ones who have lost their heritage, lost their religious identity and place within our people, lost access to millennia of wisdom, and lost a time-honored approach to living and God that isn't tainted with fear of an afterlife.


Mouldy Squid: You people? You mistake me, sir. My degree is Comparative Religions not Theology. I am not, and never have been, Christian.


Please accept my most sincere apologies.

/On a personal level, as long as your religion makes you a better person and you aren't bothering me and mine, we're good.
 
2013-08-20 05:12:31 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH:
Mouldy Squid: You people? You mistake me, sir. My degree is Comparative Religions not Theology. I am not, and never have been, Christian.

Please accept my most sincere apologies.

/On a personal level, as long as your religion makes you a better person and you aren't bothering me and mine, we're good.


Hey, no worries. I meant it more as a tropicthunder.jpg poke than anything. I am used to people assuming that because I have a degree in Religious Studies that I am some kind of bible thumper. I long for the day that people understand that the study of religion can be separate from the study of theology.

You seem to have extensive knowledge of Jewish religion; I always learn new things when you post on religion. Also, your handle intrigues me. What is the significance to Hey-Lamed-Lamed? I am not as familiar with Hebrew as I would like.
 
2013-08-20 05:47:01 PM

Mouldy Squid: You seem to have extensive knowledge of Jewish religion; I always learn new things when you post on religion. Also, your handle intrigues me. What is the significance to Hey-Lamed-Lamed? I am not as familiar with Hebrew as I would like.


I do the best I can. I'd need several more lifetimes of study to have an extensive knowledge of Judaism.
It' s my name (no vowels in Hebrew).
 
2013-08-20 05:58:44 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Mouldy Squid: You seem to have extensive knowledge of Jewish religion; I always learn new things when you post on religion. Also, your handle intrigues me. What is the significance to Hey-Lamed-Lamed? I am not as familiar with Hebrew as I would like.

I do the best I can. I'd need several more lifetimes of study to have an extensive knowledge of Judaism.
It' s my name (no vowels in Hebrew).


I know what you mean. Animism was more or less my focus. The study never ends.

I knew that the vowels were missing, but I had no idea which ones they could be. Doesn't modern Hebrew use diacritic marks to denote vowels? My experience with Hebrew is limited to a brief spate of research on Kabbalah (by way of Ceremonial Occultism), so basically nothing beyond recognizing the individual letters and phonemes.
 
2013-08-20 06:18:32 PM

Mouldy Squid: I knew that the vowels were missing, but I had no idea which ones they could be.


Ah, sorry. Hillel.

Mouldy Squid: Doesn't modern Hebrew use diacritic marks to denote vowels?


For kids and other learners, mostly. Reading is whole-word, for the most part. We also use trop marks for cantillation, although that, too, is a lifetime worth of study in itself.

Mouldy Squid: Hebrew is limited to a brief spate of research on Kabbalah


Gah. You're supposed to save that for when you're steeped in Torah, over forty, and married with children. You know: When you have enough living under your belt that you're grounded, and so that the mysticism doesn't become an end in itself.

Mouldy Squid: nothing beyond recognizing the individual letters and phonemes


Pretty much any Jewish congregation has classes open to the public - if, of course, the price is right. A synagogue is usually also a  בית מדרש  a House of Learning. Most often it's the cantor who takes the lead in teaching Hebrew literacy and cantillation. Interpretation, explanation, and understanding are usually the domain of the rabbi.
 
2013-08-20 06:19:31 PM
Sorry, modmins: THAT LINK HAS NSFW LANGUAGE!
 
2013-08-20 07:14:17 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Mouldy Squid: I knew that the vowels were missing, but I had no idea which ones they could be.

Ah, sorry. Hillel.

Mouldy Squid: Doesn't modern Hebrew use diacritic marks to denote vowels?

For kids and other learners, mostly. Reading is whole-word, for the most part. We also use trop marks for cantillation, although that, too, is a lifetime worth of study in itself.

Mouldy Squid: Hebrew is limited to a brief spate of research on Kabbalah

Gah. You're supposed to save that for when you're steeped in Torah, over forty, and married with children. You know: When you have enough living under your belt that you're grounded, and so that the mysticism doesn't become an end in itself.

Mouldy Squid: nothing beyond recognizing the individual letters and phonemes

Pretty much any Jewish congregation has classes open to the public - if, of course, the price is right. A synagogue is usually also a  בית מדרש  a House of Learning. Most often it's the cantor who takes the lead in teaching Hebrew literacy and cantillation. Interpretation, explanation, and understanding are usually the domain of the rabbi.


:) ah, but mysticism is the very soul of religion! Without experience of the numinous, religion is naught but dogma. But that is a discussion for another time.

Thank you for the information on Hebrew. It has been several years since I last looked at it in any form. Perhaps when I have time I will try to add it to German and Norwegian in my group of vaguely understood languages.
 
Displayed 18 of 318 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report