Obama..... not religious?

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, I can judge him.

That's your Catholic guilt talking.

Well, I wouldn't say that. It's more my judgmentalism talking, but I come by that naturally, not through any religious teaching or upbringing. As for my Catholic guilt, I get that entirely second-hand these days.

In any event, I'm not saying that someone must be a fundamentalist in order to be a Christian. I know there are plenty of sincere, devout Christians who view the bible as something less than the inerrant word of god. Catholics, for all their faults, have always held the bible as being, in large parts, metaphorical rather than literal.

Nevertheless, picking and choosing which one of god's precepts one takes and which one leaves always involves a choice, and if that choice is based on anything but pure whim, then there has to be some theological reason behind the choice. Frankly, given the inherently contradictory nature of the bible, I doubt that there is any consistent reason that wouldn't involve further inconsistencies. Jesus, after all, said that he was both fulfilling and overturning the Mosaic law. It's tough to reconcile those positions even if you're the son of god, so imagine the difficulties that mere mortals face.

As it is, the bible is, as Thomas points out, not only anti-gay, but anti-shellfish as well. I'm not familiar with the theological gymnastics that some Christians make to reconcile their hatred of gays with their love of shrimp, but that's a struggle that they need to make with their own consciences and a decision that they'll have to justify to their own version of god. I don't think I could square that particular circle, but fortunately that's not a battle I choose to fight.

That's not to say, however, that I am not qualified to judge religious hypocrisy when I see it. If a man says that he is a good husband but I know he is an adulterer and a wife-beater, I don't think I need to be married in order to point out the inconsistencies in his stated position and his actions. Likewise, if a person claims to be a good Catholic but who denies the doctrines of transubstantiation and the virgin birth, I don't need to be a Catholic to say, with considerable justification, that that person is being a hypocrite. That's not because I know the definition of what it means to be a Catholic, it's because I know the definition of what it means to be a hypocrite.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

We cross posted....

Does your good Catholic -- the one who follows all the tenets -- get to say he's a Christian?

(see last page)

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Well, I wouldn't say that. It's more my judgmentalism talking, but I come by that naturally, not through any religious teaching or upbringing. As for my Catholic guilt, I get that entirely second-hand these days.

I'm not convinced that judgmentalism and an upbringing in a conservative religious tradition aren't related. There's something about the strong theological self-righteousness of childhood that's hard to let go of.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

But, does a Roman Catholic who does profess all those things get to claim he's a Christian? Most fundies I know say that Catholics aren't Christians... which is a surprise to most Roman Catholics I know.

Reminds me of when I went to college and one of my classmates asked me: "are you a Christian or are you a Catholic?"

JPB wrote:

So-- the point of the pie fight is who gets to decide?

Ah, well when it comes to the Roman Catholic church, that's an easy question to answer: the pope gets to decide.

Indeed, most religions have some sort of doctrine by which the sheep are separated from the goats. After all, what's the point of having a club if you can't exclude people? Some Protestants, of course, are far less rigid than the Papists, but I doubt any of them are entirely doctrine-free. As I see it, the sine qua non of Christianity is a belief in the divinity of Christ. I really can't imagine how one can be Christian yet deny that Christ was, in some way, divine. Whether that means that Christ was god or the son of god or co-god or something else doesn't much matter as long as Christ partook of some aspect of divinity. Catholics, consequently, are Christians, whereas Muslims, who believe that Jesus was merely a prophet of god, on par with Abraham or Mohamed, are not.

JPB wrote:

Does your good Catholic -- the one who follows all the tenets -- get to say he's a Christian?

Oh, he can say it, just as I can say that I'm the queen of Romania. Saying it, however, doesn't make it so.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

As for everyone else, if you don't like getting meringue in your face, then you might want to reconsider your decision to step into the middle of the pie fight.

I'm outta here. Meringue is, to my mind, a waste of a pie crust.

0 Replies

@JPB,

You can't make this stuff up. It must be right, right?

Quote:

According to the Bible, a true Christian is chosen by God before the foundation of the world, redeemed and forgiven by the blood of Christ, illuminated by the Spirit, knows and obeys the truth of the Gospel. A Christian is someone who trusts in Christ for his salvation, and gives all praise to God for His grace. (Please read Ephesians 1:3-13).

Does a Roman Catholic fit this description? Superficially he does. He believes in Christ and speaks about the grace of God. But if he follows the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, regretfully I must say that he does not really believe in Christ nor does he know the grace of God. Please allow me to explain.

The Gospel teaches that "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:28). God regards a person just and righteous who trusts wholeheartedly in Jesus, and who does not attempt to win God's favour by his imperfect obedience of the Law. Sadly, Roman theology has rejected God's way of salvation. To faith, Rome adds a set of deeds (many of which are human inventions) and curses anyone who dares to completely trust in Christ alone for salvation. 'If anyone says that the faith that justifies is nothing else but trust in the divine mercy, which pardons sins because of Christ, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified, let him be anathema.' (Council of Trent, session 6, cannon 12).

We firmly believe that our sins are pardoned because of the sacrifice of Christ alone. Rome would have us perform acts of penance and suffer in purgatory to expiate our sins. The Bible proclaims Christ, the Priest who offered himself once for all. Rome would have us apply to her priests who daily offer their sacrifices on the altar. The Bible proclaims Christ as the only Mediator, Rome would have us apply to other mediators, like Mary, the saints and the church. Just For Catholics

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

You can't make this stuff up. It must be right, right?

There is, I think, a rather large difference between someone saying that he is a good Catholic even though he doesn't follow the church's tenets, and someone else saying Catholics aren't genuine Christians. The former is simply a matter of comparing one's stated positions with one's practices, while the latter is a theological controversy. The former is fairly easy to resolve and involves no specialized knowledge, the latter is impossible to resolve and involves an intimate familiarity with religious texts and, preferably, with god himself.

1 Reply

Re: aidan (Post 3559382)
Frank said
Quote:

Quote:

Yes, I think probably this is true. But…since the Christian god…which of course, is the god Jesus worshiped and directed you folks to love…informs you via the Bible that homosexual behavior is an abomination….

…you’ve really got to wonder why the church you went to didn’t teach you that!

I don't know - I think my pastor was a nice guy - that might explain it.

Quote:

I KNOW THAT HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY FROM HETEROSEXUALS, Aiden…and I do not do otherwise. I have friends of both sexes who are homosexual.

But that does not detract from the fact that a purported Christian feeling that same way….is hypocrisy. A Christian should be honoring the sensitivities of the god they supposedly love and worship.

And who among us in never hypocritical?
I've spoken before about not knowing what exactly to call myself as I seem to have a hybrid set of beliefs. I call it christianity, because I learned what I learned in a christian church. Whether my educators in christianity (being primarily my mother and father) were neglectful in not teaching me that I should judge and hate- I can't say. I can only say I'm happy I got the specific christian educators and education that I got.
I don't have to worry about people being gay or hypocrites or anything else that's commonly part of the human condition.
It's not my job to judge....period.

Quote:

Why is that so ******* hard to understand????

Life is full of inconsistencies. Some of them are hard to understand. Why is it so ******* hard for you to understand that?

Quote:

Why are you people still fighting this obvious truth???

Deluded I guess - but hopefully so...

Quote:

The church leaders who taught you, Aiden, were hypocrites! That is a fact!

Yes - most definitely. Because they were human. And every human walking the earth is a hypocrite in some way to some extent.

Quote:

They cannot teach acceptance and tolerance for homosexual behavior if they claim that Jesus is the son of the god of the Bible…and if they teach that the Bible tells us what the god of the Bible expects of humans…UNLESS THEY ARE HYPOCRITES.

See above. But guess what - they CAN do whatever they want. You can't change that.

Quote:

I know that truth stings…but it is the truth. It cannot be any other way.

We all face truths that sting at one point or another.

Quote:

How the hell can you stand there bare faced and suggest that you have “respect” for my “beliefs.?” How do you dare to do that…in a sentence filled with the demand that I “respect yours!!!!”

I was raised in the American tradition (which seems to have gone down the tubes at this point) that you have as much right to your beliefs as I have to mine.
I can't change that - it's been fully integrated in my psyche.
Just as fully as my christian upbringing has.

Quote:

You DO NOT IN ANY WAY RESPECT MY “BELIEFS.” I don’t even fault you on that…because you cannot!

You're wrong. I can. I only know my belief works for and is right for me. I know I can't enforce it on anyone else. Frank - my son believes in God - my daughter isn't sure. Do you think I sit here and harrass and harangue her. It's pointless and fruitless- and I love her as she is. Belief is as much a function of personality as it is anything else.
I would never ask my daughter to be something she's not and lie about it.

Quote:

My “beliefs” (which I do not call beliefs, I prefer “my view of right and wrong”) are that I should be doing everything in my power to eliminate your “beliefs” from the face of the planet!

Wait - are you the ANTICHRIST?!

Quote:

Are you telling me you “respect” that…in any sense of that word?

If that's your calling - go for it.

Quote:

It is my opinion that religion demeans humanity…and that the people getting benefit from it should simply find another way to get that benefit, because the cost to humanity of having religion around for their use…simply is not worth it.

I can understand why you have that opinion. Man has pretty much fucked it all up. I think that's exactly why my psyche insists there has to be something else to have faith in.
I'd be a shitscared nervous wreck if I had to depend solely on humans.

Quote:

That is my opinion. I understand you are not of like opinion…AND I DEFINITELY RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION. (There is a difference!)

so stipulated (I got that from David)

Quote:

Anyway, “my view of what is right and wrong” includes “finally eliminating religion from the face of the planet”…as the ultimate “right!” I am obliged by my conscience to aim in that direction!

Then that's what you must do- follow your conscience.
And I have to follow mine.

Quote:

Stop suggesting that I should “respect” your “beliefs”, Aiden, because I cannot do that and be true to my view of right and wrong at the same time. And stop pretending that you can respect my view of what is right and wrong…BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT DOING IT!

In what way have I been disrespectful to you?

Quote:

And neither is Nimh or DrewDad or Craven.

they have to be responsible for their own behavior.

Quote:

If you want to discuss any of this, I’ll be happy to discuss it. If you want to pretend that I am too irrational to discuss these things...I certainly will understand that also.

I don't think you're irrational - I think that's what you think I am (because I believe in a god).
I'll discuss anything - just don't be goin' and givin' Jersey a bad name. We're not all rude assholes..(that's a joke- I tried to put one of those laughing guys, but they jump all over the page.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

As I see it, the sine qua non of Christianity is a belief in the divinity of Christ. I really can't imagine how one can be Christian yet deny that Christ was, in some way, divine. Whether that means that Christ was god or the son of god or co-god or something else doesn't much matter as long as Christ partook of some aspect of divinity.

Fair enough, I suppose. But even this does not mean that you have to believe the Bible offers the inerrant, divine truth from cover to cover, which was the point Frank was trying to illustrate with his Roman Catholic example.

You can believe that Jesus was the son of God, and yet accept that the Bible is an imperfect and sometimes contradictory record of his teachings (assembled long after his death, after all). In short, that God's real truths are something you have to divine (um) yourself in your conversations with Him, with the Bible and the church as crucial but not infallible aids on your way.

So there's disconnect here between the point Frank and Thomas were trying to make and the example which Frank used here - that of the Roman Catholic-who-doesnt-believe-in-Mary,-Jesus-and-the-Pope. Not being able to be a Christian if you don't believe in Christ , period Not Equal

not being able to be a Christian if you don't believe the Bible is the inerrant revelation of God's will from cover to cover.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Yes, I noted this before - if Christians don't believe in the hateful excerpts of scripture you blame them for, they're hypocrites, and if they do, then well, they're consistent ... but hateful fools. They can't win.

Nice set-up you got there. If Christians believe what you think Christians should believe, they are hateful fools; if they don't, well then they're not real Christians. An argument flawlessly circular in its self-confirming character.

3 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Yes, I noted this before - if Christians don't believe in the hateful excerpts of scripture you blame them for, they're hypocrites, and if they do, then well, they're consistent ... but hateful fools. They can't win.

Indeed they can't. I'm glad you're now beginning to understand the dilemma Christians are in. Frank did a good job on you after all.

1 Reply

@nimh,

Nimh wrote:

Quote:

But even this does not mean that you have to believe the Bible offers the inerrant, divine truth from cover to cover, which was the point Frank was trying to illustrate with his Roman Catholic example.

This is a strange sentence to understand...but if you are saying that I have contended that the Bible has to be inerrant, divine truth from cover to cover...I don't know that I have ever done anything like that!

I have argued that the Bible should be important to any Christian, because as I understand it, one cannot really claim to be a Christian without claiming Jesus was the Christ...and I do not see how anyone can get to that point without using the Bible. And more specifically, I cannot see how anyone can get there without using the Old Testament!

But if one is going to use the material in the Bible as reliable in establishing that Jesus is the Christ...how can one also claim that the other material is so unreliable that statements like those at Leviticus 20-13 and Leviticus 25:44ff actually mean the exact opposite of what the words say.

How can one be that arbitrary and not open the possibility of it being hypocrisy?

Answer: One cannot! That is what I have been saying.

I am not saying there is no good material in the Bible for use in establishing a personal code of conduct...but I am saying that if you are using material from that book to establish that Jesus is the Christ (i.e. that you are a Christian)..how can you possibly throw out passages like the ones cited above without opening yourself to the charge of possible hypocrisy???

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thank you, Thomas. I was going to respond to that second posting...(and probably will still offer a few words)...but you have captured part of what I will say.

0 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Not being able to be a Christian if you don't believe in Christ , period Not Equal not being able to be a Christian if you don't believe the Bible is the inerrant revelation of God's will from cover to cover.

Not "a Christian". I'll settle for "a non-hypocritical Christian". And not "the inerrant revelation of God's will". I'll settle for "a workable first shot at a moral compass". More workable than some placebo-compass that we all would agree isn't a workable first shot at a moral compass. Like The Godfather.

1 Reply

@nimh,

Nimh wrote:

Quote:

Yes, I noted this before - if Christians don't believe in the hateful excerpts of scripture you blame them for, they're hypocrites, and if they do, then well, they're consistent ... but hateful fools. They can't win.

Nice set-up you got there. If Christians believe what you think Christians should believe, they are hateful fools; if they don't, well then they're not real Christians. An argument flawlessly circular in its self-confirming character.

Well as Thomas so ably put it, YES...that is the dilemma Christians have built for themselves. (Neither Thomas nor I built it...we are merely calling attention to it.)

There is, of course, another avenue open. They can simply stop calling themselves Christians. They can use the material from the Bible as an aid in establishing a personal code of conduct...they can profess a great deal of admiration for Jesus as a thinker way ahead of his time. There is no need to pick and choose from the Bible...and call what they cull “divine revelation that Jesus is the Christ”...while chucking the other stuff in the toilet, and pretending this makes sense!

Yes, Nimh, this is exactly the point...and you seem so angry that Thomas and I have been calling it to your attention.

But that really is not gross or demeaning or mean-spirited or illogical information...nor is it circular logic.

And raising it for discussion is a totally appropriate position to take in a discussion of religion in an Internet forum.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

As I see it, the sine qua non of Christianity is a belief in the divinity of Christ. I really can't imagine how one can be Christian yet deny that Christ was, in some way, divine. Whether that means that Christ was god or the son of god or co-god or something else doesn't much matter as long as Christ partook of some aspect of divinity.

You've advanced this argument before, and i consider it fundamentally flawed. In fact, i would consider an argument that a "true" Christian must accept the injunctions of Leviticus to be better founded than the argument you advance here. The assumption of the divinity of the putative Christ in "mainstream" Christianity is essentially a product of the suppression of what came to be known as the Arian heresy, derived from the questioning of the trinity by Arius of Alexandria. In fact, Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote the confession which was adopted as the Nicene Creed, was considered an Arian by many of his contemporaries, which did not, however, diminish his influence or the favor shown him by Constantine.

One cannot allege on a traditional basis that a Christian must believe in the divinity of Christ, because there has been (or at least once was) a strong, widely subscribed to Christian belief that Christ was not divine. One cannot allege it by definition, either.

From Answers-dot-com, and based upon the American Heritage Dictionary:

n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Not following a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus, nor living according to the teachings of Jesus, nor professing belief in the teaching of Jesus Christ unavoidably entails believing in the divinity of the boy Jesus.

There might be a lot of reasons to argue about in what being a Christian consists, but there can be no unassailable basis for alleging that anyone who would profess being a Christian must also profess a belief in the divinity of the Christ.

3 Replies

@nimh,

On more point about this sentence of yours, nimh:

nimh wrote:

if Christians don't believe in the hateful excerpts of scripture you blame them for

Have you ever read the Bible cover-to-cover? Are you really saying that overall, archaic inhumanity like that in Leviticus is not the rule in this book? And that good stuff -- like "thou shalt not kill", "love thy neighbor", the golden rule, and some of the proverbs -- are not the exception?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

One cannot allege on a traditional basis that a Christian must believe in the divinity of Christ, because there has been (or at least once was) a strong, widely subscribed to Christian belief that Christ was not divine. One cannot allege it by definition, either.

I can't speak for Joe, but I agree with him, and I'm happy to peddle back to the point of saying: "if you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, you can't belong to any of the Christian denominations whose members frequently recite the Apostolic creed in their services -- which doesn't cover all Christians living today, but almost."

1 Reply

@Thomas,

You are of course free to agree with Joe. I've never said nor implied that you have no right to be hilariously wrong, Thomas.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

It's one of my favorite rights, and I'm in a habit of using it many times before breakfast. I don't think this is one of those times.

0 Replies

Obama..... not religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know