Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe ignorance of basic Christian beliefs is staggering.
umm you guys really need to get a handle on this, Christ is divine being, hes just not Almighty God for he is always in subjection to the father, he is to be honoured, but not worshipped like the father, he is a created entity, not the creator like the father. To state that we think that he is not divine is an inaccuracy, or at very least a misunder ...[text shortened]... arguments about the trinity, i am merely clarifying our position, you can believe what you want)
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHspeak for yourself, there is nothing remotely Christian about the trinity, and will you please stop waving your opinion about like some huge banner as if it were truth. Go away and learn what this means,
The ignorance of basic Christian beliefs is staggering.
(Matthew 11:19) . . .wisdom is proved righteous by its work. . .
then you may have recourse to tell others what Christianity is about and what is ignorance and what is not!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere's a difference between an opinion and a position. What you have is an opinion, whereas what I have is a position.
speak for yourself, there is nothing remotely Christian about the trinity, and will you please stop waving your opinion about like some huge banner as if it were truth. Go away and learn what this means,
(Matthew 11:19) . . .wisdom is proved righteous by its work. . .
then you may have recourse to tell others what Christianity is about and what is ignorance and what is not!
Your opinion is based on grounds so insecure that you resist even gentle nudges to test its staying power. Instead, you re-direct with attacks on the person.
My position doesn't require my defense: it's surety can be verified from myriad sources and viewed from virtually any angle and yet maintain its structure. It's only assault is the one you lobby: the one that refuses to consider the whole field of information related to the topic, the one that refuses to consider anything other than the most superficial rendering of dislocated and disassociated portions of information.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHi see you have still not learnt the meaning of Christ's words, nor do i hold out much hope that you shall ever, therefore, please do not tell me the value of what i profess, you have really no idea, as your failure to discern the words of the Christ has evidently shown, but i knew that already, it just needed confirmation, i thank you for it.
There's a difference between an opinion and a position. What you have is an opinion, whereas what I have is a position.
Your opinion is based on grounds so insecure that you resist even gentle nudges to test its staying power. Instead, you re-direct with attacks on the person.
My position doesn't require my defense: it's surety can be verified from ...[text shortened]... than the most superficial rendering of dislocated and disassociated portions of information.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieUm, you're welcome?
i see you have still not learnt the meaning of Christ's words, nor do i hold out much hope that you shall ever, therefore, please do not tell me the value of what i profess, you have really no idea, as your failure to discern the words of the Christ has evidently shown, but i knew that already, it just needed confirmation, i thank you for it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCome on Freaky. It's hard for me to believe that you are actually this dense. Is your reading comprehension seriously this bad? I mean, WTF????
[b]Like I've told you before, you need to learn to read.
I'll get right on that. Thanks.
Bidstrup does not set up a dichotomy or tension between "love, compassion and caring" and truth.
Sure he does. He lumps 'any religion, all religion' referring to all belief systems as religions. It is assumed that he has in mind Christianity, ...[text shortened]... ring--- is that there is no truth, which clearly is a self-canceling proposition.[/b]
Suppose I say that, in my view, a compassionate religion is a religion, any religion, that has tenets that characteristically reinforce reason-giving awareness of the suffering of sentient creatures.
Have I thereby just "lumped any religion, all religion" together and said they are all the same? Have I thereby just "referred to all belief systems as religions"? Can it thereby just be assumed that I "have in mind Christianity"? Have I thereby just "claimed that all religions are the same" and also said that "none of them are true"? Can it be taken that the view I am really offering is "that there is no truth"?
Well, of course not. I am just giving a characterization of what I think it would be like for a religion to be a compassionate religion. The above would all be a very silly reading. But, apparently, that was your reading of Bidstrup when he offered his characterization of what he thinks it is like for a religion to be fundamentalist.
I mean, come on. I just don't even know what to say to a person who reads that Bidstrup quote and then says with a straight face that what Bidstrup is "really offering" is the view "that there is no truth". All I can say is, WTF? If anything, like I said, it is a testament to your fundamentalist mindset that you just somehow equate doctrinal conformity so rigorously with truth broadly construed.
Anyway, we can just simply dispense with talk of 'religion' altogether. For our purposes here, Bidstrup may as well just have said that, in his view, a fundamentalist person is a person, any person, that [...]. After all, I'm not trying to say here that Christianity (or any religion for that matter) is a fundamentalist religion. I'm trying to say that you are a fundamentalist person. I'm trying to say something about your own personal and evaluative commitments. In this context, you can just take it that I introduced the Bidstrup quote to make a point about what it is like for a thing (like a person, for instance; or whatever we would want to insert here about which it could be apt to assume the thing has its own commitments in this context) to be a fundamentalist thing.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI really need to agree with this statement.
umm you guys really need to get a handle on this, Christ is divine being, hes just not Almighty God for he is always in subjection to the father, he is to be honoured, but not worshipped like the father, he is a created entity, not the creator like the father. To state that we think that he is not divine is an inaccuracy, or at very least a misunder ...[text shortened]... arguments about the trinity, i am merely clarifying our position, you can believe what you want)
I have said this before myself so I dont know why Freaky is misrepresenting what I said.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieru kidding? the trintiy is at Least 1/3 Christian (AT LEAST!)😛
speak for yourself, there is nothing remotely Christian about the trinity, and will you please stop waving your opinion about like some huge banner as if it were truth. Go away and learn what this means,
(Matthew 11:19) . . .wisdom is proved righteous by its work. . .
then you may have recourse to tell others what Christianity is about and what is ignorance and what is not!
Originally posted by LemonJelloCome on Freaky. It's hard for me to believe that you are actually this dense.
Come on Freaky. It's hard for me to believe that you are actually this dense. Is your reading comprehension seriously this bad? I mean, WTF????
Suppose I say that, in my view, a compassionate religion is a religion, any religion, that has tenets that characteristically reinforce reason-giving awareness of the suffering of sentient creatures.
Have ...[text shortened]... ng has its own commitments in this context) to be a fundamentalist thing.
Poppycock. We've been jousting for years. You absolutely know me to be this dense so don't you try to act otherwise.
Anyway, we can just simply dispense with talk of 'religion' altogether.
I suppose in a sense, we could, because he could have just as easily said "... a fundamentalist world view, really, any world view, when faced with a conflict between love, compassion and caring and adhering to the tenets of said world view will invariably choose the clenched upon world view." It didn't have to be a religion, as you point out, as much as an entrenched position which cannot be swayed... in this case, swayed by a response which would demonstrate love, compassion and caring.
I'm trying to say that you are a fundamentalist person. I'm trying to say something about your own personal and evaluative commitments.
I think I pretty much got that part.
So where's the breakdown here? I will let you decide. Of course, the first thing to establish would the value of each side of the conflict. On the one side, love-compassion-caring. Pretty heavy hitters, but who gets to determine what is lovely? What is the scale for compassion or caring? So right out of the gate, there's at minimum the appearance of a snag. Setting it aside for the time being, the supposed other side of the conflict is the resolute hold on the tenets of said belief. Similar to the first apparent snag, we must assign some value to these tenets. For instance, are these tenets universal and objective, or local, temporary and subjective?
Therefore, before we can even take the most critical step in Bidstrup's contention, i.e., identify a conflict, the values on each side haven't even been assigned. Bidstrup is no fool. He knew this going into the formulation of the sentence, and purposely re-worked it until it conveyed exactly this sentiment. He wanted to equate the non-assigned values of love, compassion and caring with the pinnacle of all experience. These three--- or the sentiment that represents them--- trumps all. All. He meant exactly what he said: that love, compassion and caring represent the highest and loftiest of ideals to which man can aspire. Anything which conflicts with this holy trinity is to be set upon, cast aside and rejected.
Notice he is careful to not include truth as the most precious commodity, but--- essentially--- love as the apex. This new (okay, maybe not so much) axiom is the improved truth, the truth that truth could never achieve. It's all about love... and if what you're into somehow conflicts with love (how this conflict arises is not made clear; he's probably still working out that aspect of the new doctrine), well, mister, you're nothing more than a fundamentalist!
Ironically, if you were to exchange religion with, say, an evolutionary world view, the results are about the same: the evolutionist becomes odd man out because he'd rather stick to the tenets of his doctrine than compromise 'his truth' for the sake of appeasing the crowd.
Moreover, it nearly goes without saying that there exists no conflict between anything representative of the Christian world view and love, compassion and caring. Certainly nothing I have represented with respect to the belief could be construed otherwise, without equally damning anyone else with an opposing world view.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMoreover, it nearly goes without saying that there exists no conflict between anything representative of the Christian world view and love, compassion and caring.
[b]Come on Freaky. It's hard for me to believe that you are actually this dense.
Poppycock. We've been jousting for years. You absolutely know me to be this dense so don't you try to act otherwise.
Anyway, we can just simply dispense with talk of 'religion' altogether.
I suppose in a sense, we could, because he could have just as otherwise, without equally damning anyone else with an opposing world view.[/b]
Exactly, so why make that distinction in MLK's case? Why use MLK's compassion for others against him, as if it were in opposition to the Gospel?
Originally posted by epiphinehasAck!
[b]Moreover, it nearly goes without saying that there exists no conflict between anything representative of the Christian world view and love, compassion and caring.
Exactly, so why make that distinction in MLK's case? Why use MLK's compassion for others against him, as if it were in opposition to the Gospel?[/b]
The intent of the posting [typing with great precision here] was to speculate whether MLK's face-to-face with pure, unadulterated, unfiltered eternal God would re-enforce his drive for social justice, or, in light of this new revelation, would he return with a renewed vigor for spreading the news of God's government.
No one said anything was wrong about the pursuit of social justice. The question concerns itself with rank. Obviously, while he was here, MLK felt that social justice was a more pressing issue than whatever he had to say from the pulpit. Would that be his mindset today, given what he has seen since his arrival in heaven?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHObviously, while he was here, MLK felt that social justice was a more pressing issue than whatever he had to say from the pulpit.
Ack!
The intent of the posting [typing with great precision here] was to speculate whether MLK's face-to-face with pure, unadulterated, unfiltered eternal God would re-enforce his drive for social justice, or, in light of this new revelation, would he return with a renewed vigor for spreading the news of God's government.
No one said anything was wro ...[text shortened]... pulpit. Would that be his mindset today, given what he has seen since his arrival in heaven?
That's not obvious at all. MLK became more engaged in social justice than being a pastor, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he considered his part in the civil rights movement more important or pressing than the truths he espoused from the pulpit. Should our dedication to the work of the Gospel preclude a life of service in other areas?
Would that be his mindset today, given what he has seen since his arrival in heaven?
Perhaps if he came back today his time would be better spent in these forums?
I don't think MLK's social justice work diminished his Gospel work at all. Having compassion for and helping the oppressed is a noble cause, which, as you said, finds no conflict with the Christian world view. Your hypothetical creates a false distinction.
Originally posted by epiphinehasMLK became more engaged in social justice than being a pastor, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he considered his part in the civil rights movement more important or pressing than the truths he espoused from the pulpit. Should our dedication to the work of the Gospel preclude a life of service in other areas?
Obviously, while he was here, MLK felt that social justice was a more pressing issue than whatever he had to say from the pulpit.
That's not obvious at all. MLK became more engaged in social justice than being a pastor, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he considered his part in the civil rights movement more important or pressi ...[text shortened]... s no conflict with the Christian world view. Your hypothetical creates a false distinction.[/b]
We cannot escape the truth that what we spend our time doing, that is our priority. When I chided my son about one of his classes wherein he was receiving only a passing grade, I asked him how he would feel if (were it possible) he were graded a C-level in guitar playing. He said, "Not possible: I spend too much time trying to get better." Only being 14, the crap was out of the horse before he realized he'd just made my point for me. He's going to be a hell of a guitar player someday by virtue of where he spends his time.
Again, no one has said anything about preclusion; the question is upon his what-if return, would his priorities be the same?
Perhaps if he came back today his time would be better spent in these forums?
If you saw me in person, you'd agree the anonymity of the internet is better for all.
I don't think MLK's social justice work diminished his Gospel work at all. Having compassion for and helping the oppressed is a noble cause, which, as you said, finds no conflict with the Christian world view. Your hypothetical creates a false distinction.
Apparently he felt there was enough of a push to move from one to the other.