Any bible scholars out there?

Can a christian deny the old testament?

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#241  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 3:48 pm

Well.... if the "No true Christian" argument is going to be revived.... :)

Theropod, I wasn't particularly put off by how you define "christian." It was mostly just unexpected and I didn't know how to respond. It wasn't and isn't a point of contention suitable to this thread, but only for the sake of clarity...

I see defining the word "christian" the same as defining any other word... over time, those words change in meaning because of what is commonly accepted by the general population. Sometimes those definitions are flat out mistakes that meme their way through generations. Eventually all words evolve and the meanings can be something different. That isn't to say we should allow any old definition anyone wants to apply as a valid one. It means that definitions aren't what they are in the dictionary, rather the opposite, society dictates the definitions and dictionaries attempt to codify those changes.

But, as proudfootz said, what the word means to YOU is your prerogative. I accept and support that too. I'll base my understanding of the word on what society at large accepts. Jim Jones, to my knowledge isn't accepted by the vast majority of christians as christian.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1687
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#242  Postby proudfootz » Apr 25, 2017 3:49 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

So, going back to page 1 - what do you make of the claim of therapod's that this one dogma about Original Sin is necessary to be a True Christian and that christians who do not adhere to that particular minutia are not christians?

While I agree it is a No True Christian fallacy, he does have a point with regards to Original Sin (or Curse) being a fundamental part of the Christianity's origin myth.


I quite agree the No True Christian fallacy is being employed there, to what end I can't say.

What do you think the point is?

Like I said, that it's incongruous to deny something that is a fundamental part of the origin of your religion.


I don't necessarily buy the notion that Original Sin was part of the origin of christianity.

So it would appear we are viewing things from different perspectives.

It would be the equivalent of Jews who believe Moses didn't lead the Jews out of Israel because they were enslaved but because they wanted to live in Israel.


:ask:

proudfootz wrote:I personally view myths about christian origins to be dubious. That christian cults can exist today without the notion of Original Sin would seem to me an indication that the doctrine was not a necessary condition at an earlier time.

That does not follow.

At best it indicates that later Christians found little or no objection to changing the original dogma.


I disagree. At the very least it demonstrates doctrines and dogmas could have changed.

At best it would indicate that Original Sin is not a necessary dogma for one to be a christian.

proudfootz wrote:
Supposing that Jesus and his first followers were Jewish, and as I pointed out in an earlier post Original Sin requiring a Savior doesn't seem to be a part of that religion, this notion would seem to have evolved at a later date.

Jesus and his followers were Jewish in almost the same sense that they are Muslims according to Islam.


:scratch:

They were ethnically Jews and thought of themselves the natural continuation of the Jewish faith.

They interpeted the Jewish text as predicting the arrival of Jesus and that Jesus would absolve/save them from the original sin/curse inflicted upon A&E.


Was Jesus one of these interpreters?

This version of the early history of christianity is very different than any I have seen anywhere.

Anyplace I can do some more reading on these Muslim followers of Jesus who came up with the notion of Jesus as a Savior from reading the Torah?
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10714

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#243  Postby theropod » Apr 25, 2017 3:50 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
theropod wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
That's been something I've been asking for since this derail started.


So, going back to page 1 - what do you make of the claim of therapod's that this one dogma about Original Sin is necessary to be a True Christian and that christians who do not adhere to that particular minutia are not christians?


Why not ask me directly? Why snip out the arguments I made in support of my claim? Again, is a radical departure from the central tenets of Christianity not enough to disqualify such as actually being Christian? As I stated in an unquoted post words have meanings, and if one dismisses the central tenets and dogma of Christianity the claim that such people as Jim Jones are also Christian is wrong. If anything one wants to believe is allowed to be called Christianity then the word has no meaning and the entire point is moot. It would be the same as if I claimed to be a Republican that supported a woman's right to control her reproductive choices, universal single payer healthcare, decreased military spending, greater environmental regluation and splitting up Wall Street banks. No matter if I claimed to be a Republican or not I could not reasonably enconsidered one. It is exactly the same as when North Korea claims to be a free and open society.

It spelled T H E R O P O D.

RS


Well, the central tenets of Christianity have changed several times over the century, from marriage, female priests, to the way one get's into heaven.
It's also a bit of stretch to compare Republicans to Christians. There aren't 6000 different Republican denominations after all.


So Christianity is whatever one wants it to be? This is the entire point that somehow seems to escape everyone. There comes a point where abandonment of of these central tenets disqualifies said factions from being able to claim, or be considered, Christianity. So, is what Jim Jones did and taught also Christianity? Nobody seems to want to address this question. He called his insanity Christianity, but wasn't it simply insanity?

No it isn't a stretch to use the Republican example because words, and positions, have meaning.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 66
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#244  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 4:02 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Except that you don't unilaterally get to declare what is and isn't rude and pretend it's all my fault.


Holy shit! We finally agree on something!

That's another fantasy.
I've agreed with you on other things before.

PensivePenny wrote:
Here is what happened:

Let's see if this time, you'll present what actually happened and if you made rational decisions.


PensivePenny wrote:1) I had a suspicion that you and I were going to descend into an argument.

Fair enough.


PensivePenny wrote:
2) I didn't want to fight.

Completely understandable.

PensivePenny wrote:
3) You badgered me to engage.

And here you're injecting fantasy into the situation.
I did not badger you. I asked you a question.


PensivePenny wrote:
4) I implied I just didn't want to, chalking it up to miscommunication or personality conflict.

And here you went wrong.
What would have been the rational, honest and productive thing to do would be asking me what I wanted to get out of my interaction with you.
Which I did clarify at several points: understand what you're trying to say and correct you were you made mistakes.


PensivePenny wrote:
3) You badgered me more to engage.

False. I pointed out that you did not answer my question, instead opting to get personal.

PensivePenny wrote:
4) I implied more strongly I just didn't want to.

Correction: You dismissed me out of hand by asserting I had nothing to offer.

PensivePenny wrote:
3) You badgered me more to engage.

False. I continued to point that, rather than having a rational discussion, you kept trying to paint me as mentally unfit and attribute all manner of other nonsense to me.


PensivePenny wrote:
4) I finally tell you explicitly I had no intention to engage you.

And I agreed that it's your perogative, but pointed out that it won't stop me from pointing out the mistakes and falsehoods in your post. Like I had just done with John Platko the post before.

PensivePenny wrote:
5) followed by yet more badgering.

False, followed by more personalised invective by you and my pointing that out.

PensivePenny wrote:
6) When a child keeps asking "why, why, why..." you either tell them why or you perhaps punish them or whatever.

When a turtle falls on his back you turn him back 'round. Neither has anything to do with what actually transpired in this thread hower. This sentence of yours is yet another inflammatory, dismissive remark.


PensivePenny wrote:
7) So, I told you why. I felt you were rude.

And I pointed out that you have a really idiosyncratic definition of rude and that you could have kept your word and long since stop responding to me.
Thereby giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were genuinly bothered by my rudeness, which wasn't present, and not trying to gaslight me.

PensivePenny wrote:
8) Meh, you do whatever you want with that bit of information. It isn't for me to say.

I will, once again, point out that you present a fantastical history of our interaction in this thread.
And will add, that I am starting to question whether you really are consistently failing to grasp what I actually post and not intentionally misrepresenting me.

PensivePenny wrote:
BUT!!! I have explicitly stated that I placed NO BLAME!!

You have explicitely done the opposite, multiple times Penny.
Do you really not realise that the posts where you did this are still in this thread?
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/any-bible-scholars-out-there-t54084-220.html#p2547430
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=54084&p=2547336#p2547336
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/any-bible-scholars-out-there-t54084-100.html#p2546801

PensivePenny wrote: Listener, talker... two people... And you and I "not gelling" as I stated way early in the thread is precisely the definition of NOT placing blame.

Except that you've been blaming me on several occasions, the links above are just a couple of examples.
And again, you don't get to unilateraly declare that it is impossible for us to have a discussion.
I am perfectly willing and capable. It's you who keeps dismissing the posibility out of hand.

PensivePenny wrote:But, you will see this interaction your way. I will see it mine.

Nope. You still don't get to pretend this is a mattter of opinion.
It is a fact that I've repeatedly explained how we could have a reasonable discussion.
It's a fact that you've repeatedly ignored this in favor of posting increasingly personalised invective.
It's a fact that you keep projecting all manner of things on your interlocutors and the titlting at those straw-men, rather than engage with what they actually posted.
That's not an interpetation. That's factual history of your interactions in this thread.

PensivePenny wrote: I seriously doubt either of us will tweak our perspective. Am I the only one that sees the futility here?

No, just the only one who dismiss the possibility of a reasonable discussion out of hand.
I'm willing and capable. Just waiting or you to stop making assumptions and tilting a straw-men.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30214
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#245  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 4:04 pm

theropod wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
theropod wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

So, going back to page 1 - what do you make of the claim of therapod's that this one dogma about Original Sin is necessary to be a True Christian and that christians who do not adhere to that particular minutia are not christians?


Why not ask me directly? Why snip out the arguments I made in support of my claim? Again, is a radical departure from the central tenets of Christianity not enough to disqualify such as actually being Christian? As I stated in an unquoted post words have meanings, and if one dismisses the central tenets and dogma of Christianity the claim that such people as Jim Jones are also Christian is wrong. If anything one wants to believe is allowed to be called Christianity then the word has no meaning and the entire point is moot. It would be the same as if I claimed to be a Republican that supported a woman's right to control her reproductive choices, universal single payer healthcare, decreased military spending, greater environmental regluation and splitting up Wall Street banks. No matter if I claimed to be a Republican or not I could not reasonably enconsidered one. It is exactly the same as when North Korea claims to be a free and open society.

It spelled T H E R O P O D.

RS


Well, the central tenets of Christianity have changed several times over the century, from marriage, female priests, to the way one get's into heaven.
It's also a bit of stretch to compare Republicans to Christians. There aren't 6000 different Republican denominations after all.


So Christianity is whatever one wants it to be? This is the entire point that somehow seems to escape everyone. There comes a point where abandonment of of these central tenets disqualifies said factions from being able to claim, or be considered, Christianity. So, is what Jim Jones did and taught also Christianity? Nobody seems to want to address this question. He called his insanity Christianity, but wasn't it simply insanity?

No it isn't a stretch to use the Republican example because words, and positions, have meaning.

But the differences between Republicans are smaller than those between even the dominant sects of Christianty.
Look I agree with you that it's silly to define Christianity as whatever anyone wants it to be, but I've yet to see someone present a coherent, rigiourous definition of a True Christian.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30214
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#246  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 4:10 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
While I agree it is a No True Christian fallacy, he does have a point with regards to Original Sin (or Curse) being a fundamental part of the Christianity's origin myth.


I quite agree the No True Christian fallacy is being employed there, to what end I can't say.

What do you think the point is?

Like I said, that it's incongruous to deny something that is a fundamental part of the origin of your religion.


I don't necessarily buy the notion that Original Sin was part of the origin of christianity.

It's present both in the bible and in texts written by the early Christian communities.

proudfootz wrote:So it would appear we are viewing things from different perspectives.

What do you base your perspective on?

proudfootz wrote:
It would be the equivalent of Jews who believe Moses didn't lead the Jews out of Israel because they were enslaved but because they wanted to live in Israel.


:ask:

The Jewish texts speak of the Exodus as the freeing of the Jewish slaves from Egypt.
Despite the complete absence of mass enslavement of Jews in ancient Egypt, this is still a central tenet of Judaism.
There's no significant Jewish denomination that believes this did not happen, with the exception of those who dismiss the entire Jewish texts as being pure allegory.

proudfootz wrote:
proudfootz wrote:I personally view myths about christian origins to be dubious. That christian cults can exist today without the notion of Original Sin would seem to me an indication that the doctrine was not a necessary condition at an earlier time.

That does not follow.

At best it indicates that later Christians found little or no objection to changing the original dogma.


I disagree. At the very least it demonstrates doctrines and dogmas could have changed.

That's not a disagreement of my position.

proudfootz wrote:At best it would indicate that Original Sin is not a necessary dogma for one to be a christian.

From a modern day perspective.
That says nothing about the early days of Christianity.
That's like arguing that marriage was always a central Chrisitan tenet, eventhough the Chruch did not officiate it until well into the Medieval period.

proudfootz wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Supposing that Jesus and his first followers were Jewish, and as I pointed out in an earlier post Original Sin requiring a Savior doesn't seem to be a part of that religion, this notion would seem to have evolved at a later date.

Jesus and his followers were Jewish in almost the same sense that they are Muslims according to Islam.


:scratch:

They were ethnically Jews and thought of themselves the natural continuation of the Jewish faith.

They interpeted the Jewish text as predicting the arrival of Jesus and that Jesus would absolve/save them from the original sin/curse inflicted upon A&E.


Was Jesus one of these interpreters?

How would we know? We have no direct writing of him.

What we do know, both from the bible and other early Christian texts, is that this is the origin myth: that god had to sent Jesus to (paraphrasing) create a loophole out of the eternal, inheretable sin of A&E.

proudfootz wrote:
Anyplace I can do some more reading on these Muslim followers of Jesus who came up with the notion of Jesus as a Savior from reading the Torah?

Read my post again, that's not what I said.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30214
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#247  Postby theropod » Apr 25, 2017 4:15 pm

So, I am obligated to provide a defintion of a true Christian when all I have ever said that some things exclude one from being able to claim Christianity? Huh.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 66
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#248  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 4:15 pm

Thomas, I really wish you would report me to a mod.... truly. Expressing my opinion that you were rude, AND ONLY AFTER BEING PRESSED why, why, why, did I relent. If that is worthy of report, please do so. It isn't my desire to remain a member, if sensibilities are so delicate that anything I've said here (especially in THIS thread) is in ANY way worthy of sanction.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1687
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#249  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 4:18 pm

theropod wrote:So, I am obligated to provide a defintion of a true Christian when all I have ever said that some things exclude one from being able to claim Christianity? Huh.

RS

You're not obligated to do anything.
I am just saying that, without a rigourous definition of what is Truely Christian, how could you objectively claim, what is not Truely Christian?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30214
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#250  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 4:21 pm

theropod wrote:So, I am obligated to provide a defintion of a true Christian when all I have ever said that some things exclude one from being able to claim Christianity? Huh.

RS


No, you are not obligated. You excluded churches that don't recognize 'original sin' from the christian definition. Personally, I found that odd, since I've known lots of christians of different faiths, who don't recognize it. I can understand more obvious exclusions, perhaps... like drinking poison kool-aid... but when you have virtually every faith who claims their form of christianity is the "one true" it seems the definition is highly contested. If you know what a christian is, I thought you might know how to define it. No one here (I don't think) is demanding you provide one.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1687
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#251  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 4:22 pm

PensivePenny wrote:Thomas, I really wish you would report me to a mod.... truly.

I and others have already done so.
And I will continue to do so with every FUA violation you, or anyone else for that matter, makes.

PensivePenny wrote: Expressing my opinion that you were rude, AND ONLY AFTER BEING PRESSED why, why, why, did I relent.

I never asked why you did not want to respond to me.
All I did was point that doing so won't stop me from responding to your posts.
And I already pointed out that your definition of 'rude' is rather idiosyncratic.


PensivePenny wrote: If that is worthy of report, please do so.

Again you respond to a scenario that did not take place in this thread.
I objected to your repeated, personalised comments.
At no point did I ask you why you did not want to respond or objected that you did not explain why.

PensivePenny wrote: It isn't my desire to remain a member, if sensibilities are so delicate that anything I've said here (especially in THIS thread) is in ANY way worthy of sanction.

How fortunate then, that the above is yet another fantasy.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30214
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#252  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 4:23 pm

Okay, Thomas. I'm glad we have come to an understanding.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1687
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#253  Postby John Platko » Apr 25, 2017 4:25 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Except that you don't unilaterally get to declare what is and isn't rude and pretend it's all my fault.


Holy shit! We finally agree on something!

Here is what happened:

1) I had a suspicion that you and I were going to descend into an argument.

2) I didn't want to fight.

3) You badgered me to engage.

4) I implied I just didn't want to, chalking it up to miscommunication or personality conflict.

3) You badgered me more to engage.

4) I implied more strongly I just didn't want to.

3) You badgered me more to engage.

4) I finally tell you explicitly I had no intention to engage you.

5) followed by yet more badgering.

6) When a child keeps asking "why, why, why..." you either tell them why or you perhaps punish them or whatever.

7) So, I told you why. I felt you were rude.

8) Meh, you do whatever you want with that bit of information. It isn't for me to say.

BUT!!! I have explicitly stated that I placed NO BLAME!! Listener, talker... two people... And you and I "not gelling" as I stated way early in the thread is precisely the definition of NOT placing blame.

But, you will see this interaction your way. I will see it mine. I seriously doubt either of us will tweak our perspective. Am I the only one that sees the futility here?


:no:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#254  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 4:25 pm

Could you then answer my question or link to the post where you think you answered it?
Why do you think the 4 or 5 mentions of the OT still being valid, in the bible, is not a lot?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30214
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#255  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 4:30 pm

In the US, I'm not so sure about elsewhere, we have this epidemic of universities who are now required, mostly by students, to provide "safe spaces" from "microagression" and other "perceived threats." It is a sign that people have become overly sensitive to criticism or disagreement, "micro-agression". Now THAT is something that SHOULD make us ALL sad. I hope it never rises to that here. :dunno:
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1687
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#256  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 4:32 pm

PensivePenny wrote:In the US, I'm not so sure about elsewhere, we have this epidemic of universities who are now required, mostly by students, to provide "safe spaces" from "microagression" and other "perceived threats." It is a sign that people have become overly sensitive to criticism or disagreement, "micro-agression". Now THAT is something that SHOULD make us ALL sad. I hope it never rises to that here. :dunno:

If anything it's been going the other way with trolls getting more and more leeway in flaming or outright attacking their interlocutors.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30214
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#257  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 25, 2017 4:35 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Could you then answer my question or link to the post where you think you answered it?
Why do you think the 4 or 5 mentions of the OT still being valid, in the bible, is not a lot?


I probably didn't answer it because it is irrelevant. "A lot" is as relative term. Did you think it was meant to be a scientific claim? I just expected there would have been more. That's all.

Why, what did you read into it?
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1687
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#258  Postby John Platko » Apr 25, 2017 4:36 pm

theropod wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
theropod wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

So, going back to page 1 - what do you make of the claim of therapod's that this one dogma about Original Sin is necessary to be a True Christian and that christians who do not adhere to that particular minutia are not christians?


Why not ask me directly? Why snip out the arguments I made in support of my claim? Again, is a radical departure from the central tenets of Christianity not enough to disqualify such as actually being Christian? As I stated in an unquoted post words have meanings, and if one dismisses the central tenets and dogma of Christianity the claim that such people as Jim Jones are also Christian is wrong. If anything one wants to believe is allowed to be called Christianity then the word has no meaning and the entire point is moot. It would be the same as if I claimed to be a Republican that supported a woman's right to control her reproductive choices, universal single payer healthcare, decreased military spending, greater environmental regluation and splitting up Wall Street banks. No matter if I claimed to be a Republican or not I could not reasonably enconsidered one. It is exactly the same as when North Korea claims to be a free and open society.

It spelled T H E R O P O D.

RS


Well, the central tenets of Christianity have changed several times over the century, from marriage, female priests, to the way one get's into heaven.
It's also a bit of stretch to compare Republicans to Christians. There aren't 6000 different Republican denominations after all.


So Christianity is whatever one wants it to be? This is the entire point that somehow seems to escape everyone. There comes a point where abandonment of of these central tenets disqualifies said factions from being able to claim, or be considered, Christianity.


And exactly who is the referee that makes the call of disqualification?

Thomas Jefferson considered himself a Christian. He seemed to have put a lot of time and effort into working out what he thought it actually means to be a Christian. Was he wrong?



So, is what Jim Jones did and taught also Christianity? Nobody seems to want to address this question. He called his insanity Christianity, but wasn't it simply insanity?

No it isn't a stretch to use the Republican example because words, and positions, have meaning.

RS


One could be a Christian and insane - they are not mutually exclusive. :no:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#259  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 4:37 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Could you then answer my question or link to the post where you think you answered it?
Why do you think the 4 or 5 mentions of the OT still being valid, in the bible, is not a lot?


I probably didn't answer it because it is irrelevant.

It might be to you, it isn't to me.

PensivePenny wrote: "A lot" is as relative term.

It has a distinct implication that you'd expect more.
I am wondering why.


PensivePenny wrote: Did you think it was meant to be a scientific claim? I just expected there would have been more. That's all.

I wonder why.

PensivePenny wrote:Why, what did you read into it?

Exactly what you just said, that you're expecting more and I want to know why you'd expect that.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30214
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#260  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 25, 2017 4:38 pm

PensivePenny wrote:In the US, I'm not so sure about elsewhere, we have this epidemic of universities who are now required, mostly by students, to provide "safe spaces" from "microagression" and other "perceived threats." It is a sign that people have become overly sensitive to criticism or disagreement, "micro-agression". Now THAT is something that SHOULD make us ALL sad. I hope it never rises to that here. :dunno:

Also, just this one comment, because I don't want to derail this threead.
The whole safe-spaces discussion is not as one-sided as you're portraying it here.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30214
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest