Aren't making judgments about a person purely because of what they believe and the fact that they do not live up to your standards? Is't this the very thing many have been accused of because they do not agree with certain issues?
Yet, I find that people that are so willing to do this are so willing to jump to the defense of someone or something that they feel are being discriminated against because someone doesn't agree with their view?
Don't you feel that is a bit of a double-standard?
A pious Christian lady lives a life of austere contemplation removed from the world of temptation and discourse.
It passes a joke and moves to blasphemy that Momma Angel is a Christian.Christian ladies do not make exhibitions of themselves and what few words they do use are day to day politenesses and communal prayer.One cannnot be a Christian simply by asserting one is one.The very print Momma uses is symbolically opposite to the nun's habit which is both plain and uniform with those around her.
I have little doubt that her views are a hodge-podge of a few of the heresies so prevalent when the discipline of proper theological authority breaks down and which have all been rejected at one time or another for the simple reason that they weaken the Christian project from which we have all derived so many benefits.
Her so called Christianity has no point of contact with mine.Her vanity astounds me.
And my current fatalism is in part because of things like the above re: reason -- one of the main discussions I had with Momma Angel ended this way:
sozobe wrote:That's another point that was conceded long ago, though, Momma Angel.
The "you's" you are talking to now -- me, nimh, sakhi, Eorl, etc. -- are not people who ever asked you for evidence.
I have absolutely no interest in giving you the desire for finding evidence for god. I have absolutely no problem with you saying, "I believe in god, I have no evidence, I just do."
The only compromise is the one you have said you accept (but your actions/ words bely):
Momma Angel wrote:But, the standards of evidence cannot admittedly be adhered to in trying to explain God. I admit that. I accept that. I have no problem with you telling me that.[/b]
Right. Good. Exactly. Say that when it comes up, and move on.
Momma Angel wrote:sozobe,
I understand how you feel, sozobe. I wish more had your feeling. I was speaking to those (i.e., Brandon, etc.) that continually ask for that evidence.
And that is exactly what I am going to do from now on! Thanx! ;-)[/b]
Doesn't seem to have stuck.
spendius wrote:One cannnot be a Christian simply by asserting one is one.
This isn't true, spendius. The taking on of the assertion is all that is necessary. Who gets to decide who is the true Christian? You? Momma A? Partyjohn and his ilk? I'm amazed when Christians start Christian-bashing other Christians. There isn't a test that's graded by the priest, pastor, or minister. It's exactly what each individual makes it out to be, and therein lies the problem. I laugh (or sigh) whenever I see the words 'real Christian' used by a Christian trying to judge another self-proclaimed Christian. No one should judge the Christianity of another. It is very much a self proclaimation.
It's good to agree with you again, Questioner.
Momma--
What I am saying is that the Christian ideology, itself, is not supported by reason. There are, no doubt, many intelligent people who have adopted the Christian faith. This does not make them unreasonable people (I am sure they have their reasons). But it does not change the fact that Christianity is a belief that is based on pure faith. Therefore, it impossible to engage in reasoned debate on the subject.
echi,
You say there are intelligent people who have adopted the Christian faith and turn right around and say it is impossible to engage in a reasoned debate on the subject.
You still seem to have a predisposed bias here. I am not saying that you outwardly do this to anyone, echi. Actually, I have not seen you do this. I am just not understanding.
Momma Angel wrote:echi,
You say there are intelligent people who have adopted the Christian faith and turn right around and say it is impossible to engage in a reasoned debate on the subject.
You still seem to have a predisposed bias here. I am not saying that you outwardly do this to anyone, echi. Actually, I have not seen you do this. I am just not understanding.
I am not biased at all, that I can see. There ARE reasonable people who have adopted the Christian faith. Being reasonable people, they do not attempt to prove their faith to be fact. It is impossible to engage in reasoned debate on this subject because it has nothing to do with
reason... it has to do with
faith. These are two totally different things.
echi,
I understand that. But, don't you see how saying someone is unreasonable because they are Christian can be offensive? If I were to say that non-believers were unreasonable because they do not believe in God, it is doing the same thing. There just seems to be a predisposition going on about if you are a Christian, you are a nutjob, etc.
Momma--
Okay. I did say that Christians love a good fight and have no respect for reason. A little harsh, I guess. Let me clarify...
First off, Christians do love to fight. Of course, I am generalizing, but c'mon, admit it. You, for one, seem pretty incapable of resisting the urge to bite back (pretty understandable, though, considering the hits you take!). Still, I know where to go on this site if I want to see blood.
The part about Christians having no respect for reason is referring specifically to debates on the subject of Christianity. I do not believe that Christians lack the capacity for reason. You know that I agree with you in other threads where faith is not the underlying argument.
echi wrote:Momma--
I was just indicating to Hep how I classify Us and Them. I don't have any prejudice against Christians. It is a fact, however, that the Christian position is not rooted in reason. If you take reason out of the picture, then what is left to maintain structure and meaning? This is not a Bible forum.
I understand where you are coming from Echi. I hope that my comment wasn't taken as being directed at you personally. Really I was just making a statement. Not at all trying to instigate anything. I do appreciate your perspective on things. I think you have some really good insight. You have also helped to raise some questions for me to think about.
LOL cute echi! Thanks for making me laugh... I'm so tired today my brains running in first gear...
Actually phoenix... that's how I laugh... I think Mr. Echi was laughing... or making fun of my laugh... hmmmm....
Acquiunk wrote:Sozobe, could you provide a link to the posting by nimh that you feel is particularly pertinent?
FWIW, I think I summarised it all now
in this post - probably easier than the succession of individual posts - and I'm planning to leave it at that.
Re: In all honesty (part 2)
dyslexia wrote:on 01/09-06 I posted this thread which now appears to be substantiated;
Code:In all honesty I do fear the christianization of a2k will lead to the crucification of a2k. I don't see resurrection as a potential.
Dys has only lived in Albuquerque for about a year and he already has corrupted the entire West side of the city.
BBB
J_B wrote-
Quote:. No one should judge the Christianity of another. It is very much a self proclaimation.
Not to me.On your basis J_B we can all make up our own rules as we go along and whatever we do proclaim ourselves Christians.Fair enough but the word is then meaningless.
