People say- "I am Christian"; so?

[Kosher Ham]

Are you guys talking about Jeffrey Dahlmer ?

[Teller]

Are you guys talking about Jeffrey Dahlmer ?

No. I think they're talking about Jeffrey Dahmer. :pfft:

[Kosher Ham]

Ahh...I knew there was not an "o" in his name.

:doh:

[Tweedr01]

Call me "billy" one more ****ing time.:mad:

I know you enjoy piling on, but it's starting to get annoying. and thanks for the "kthnxby" cell phone teenage acronym crap

would you mind if i said, "lighten up francis"?

Are you guys talking about Jeffrey Dahlmer ?

sort of

No. I think they're talking about Jeffrey Dahmer. :pfft:

yes

[No Excuses]

Funny. I don't believe Dohmer is in hell, but I don't believe Gandhi is either. I find it hard to believe that Dohmer has better eternal outlook than Gandhi simply because of a technicality.

I don't believe in heaven or hell, but if it does exist then Jeffrey Dahmer must be eternally burning in the deepest parts of it. I don't care what he accepted in prison. Anyone who has seen the work Dahmer did cannot honestly believe that this ****er is in heaven.

I'm 100% with you on this.

[Thinking Skins]

ASF, the problem with this, though, is that you're presenting YOUR view of Christianity. I've been a Christian for some 20+ years and talked to many different people about it, and have been introduced to many different interpretations of Christianity, all with this authoritative tone, i.e. "my way is the right way". Even right now I have fights with my mother about what a Christian is and that I'm living my life wrong (not because of any particular sin, but because I don't tell people they need to be baptized). The preface, "I'm a Christian" is just a space-filler made to make whatever is coming after that statement sound like its coming from God Herself, and not as it is, as that person's opinion.

For instance, what I've done here is give my interpretation of the Bible. I'll go ahead and say that MLK and Philip Guiley (author of "If God is Love") agree with what I say. But, nonetheless, its still my interpretation. There's still a lot I question (Is there reincarnation, for example). I remember I wrote a speech one day about "Atheist Christian", who I called people who didn't believe in God but still lived their lives based on a principle of love your neighbor. In my opinion, these people deserve no less of a reward for living a "good life" than one who is baptized and does the same.

What you've stated here is your interpretation of the Bible, and I'm sure that there are many who agree with you. But the problem with much of the Christian attitude is that it forms this exclusionary attitude of "I'm better than you because I'm saved", which even if you haven't said it directly, is what many are getting out of your comments in this thread. And if Christianity does value the great commission, then the way you're not connecting with the people who need your message the most, then you're not doing a good job at it. Jesus didn't condemn the non-believers, he helped them.

I remember when I was dating an Atheist (life changing experience), I thought I had to talk to her about God. I remember bringing up the question of why she was an Atheist, she spoke to me with eloquence on Buddhism and Christianity, meditation, prayer, and the importance of both, the interpretations of God, the male dominance of history and how that leads to biases in the interpretations. I had some of my most "religious" talks with this person who was an Atheist. Maybe you see me as a failure as a Christian for not converting her, but I feel like I've succeeded because we both gained a lot about talking to "God", listening to "God", and understanding what it means to "love God and love your neighbor", which if they are truly the most important commandments, then these should help us both out.

[rdsknbill]

I know, at this point I just think it is really sad more than anything. I mean seriously, anyone who knows me knows that there are any multitude of ways to accuse me of something that actually have merit.

It is really sad. It's sad that you feel a need to declare your income and family situation. Did I say that you directly were one of the terrible human beings that exploits the sheep of the world. Nope, don't believe I did, but you immediately thought that it was All about you.

Here in lies your problem. It is your arrogance that doesn't allow you to understand that every post doesn't directly relate to your personal situation.

[techboy]

Like I said, Constantine wrote his Bible the way he wanted for his own political purposes and King James wrote his Bible the way he wanted for his own political purposes. How do you explain the "lost gospels" or the "lost books" that are remarkabley different than the Bible that's come down through the centuries?

I was in Italy when this thread began, but since this has been quoted recently, I figured I'd quickly address it.

I have no idea where you did your wide ranging research, but this couldn't be more incorrect.

Actually, it sounds pretty much like the plot of The Da Vinci Code, right down to the male suppression of female oriented gospels, and though I have no idea if that's where you got this (Dan Brown got it from somewhere else too), it does make things very convenient, because I can just point you to this interview with Bart Ehrman, who is not a Christian, by the way (he has engaged in several debates on the historicity of the Ressurection, arguing against).

It's a good, quick read, but here are a couple of excerpts:

Some of the big ones: It's not true that before Constantine, Christians understood Jesus to be human but not divine. That's absolutely false. Most people thought Jesus was divine centuries before Constantine. Second, it's not true that Constantine decided which books to include in the New Testament; he had nothing to do with it. And the Council of Nicea didn't have anything to do with which books to include in the New Testament.

King James didn't write the Bible either. He just commissioned an English translation, for the record. As to why the so-called "lost gospels" weren't/aren't used by Christians, it's pretty simple:

What do you think of the debate about how important the Gnostic gospels are? Some people say that the Gnostics, like Thomas, should be given as much weight as the Gospel of John because it was written-they say-at the same time.

I think that the Gospel of Thomas was written about 20 years after John; my opinion on this is the majority opinion; almost everybody who studies Thomas thinks of it as later than John with a few notable exceptions, including Elaine Pagels. She's the main one, but most people think Thomas was written in the early second century. And Mary was written some time after that. So I think these gospels are highly important for understanding how people were portraying Jesus, but they're not as useful for establishing what Jesus was really like, as the New Testament Gospels are.

So in a nutshell, what's the fallacy that "The Da Vinci Code" puts forth as it relates to these gospels?

There are several fallacies-but in a nutshell, the fallacy is thinking that these gospels give a more historically accurate view of Jesus than the New Testament gospels. I'm saying this not out of any religious conviction, but strictly on historical grounds-that statement is not true.

Christians don't/didn't accept the so-called "lost gospels" for the same reason historians don't use them much to study the historical Jesus: while the Gospels were all written within the first century (and parts such as the Passion story in Mark can be dated perhaps as within 7 years of the crucifixion), and by either eyewitnesses or with the participation/checking of eyewitnesses, the others were written at least 100 years (and usually much more) after the fact, by people with no connection to the events.

As Dr. Ehrman says in the article, this can be useful to study what Gnostics of the 2nd and 3rd century believed, but not what Jesus and his earliest followers thought and taught.

Christians are obviously interested in the latter, not the former, so it makes sense that they do/did choose some works and reject others.

I wrote a longer post about the formation of the canon herte, if more is desired.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It is really sad. It's sad that you feel that you feel a need to declare your income and family situation. Did I say that you directly were one of the terrible human beings that exploits the sheep of the world. Nope, don't believe I did, but you immediately thought that it was All about you.

Oh no you didn't but you certainly implied that I was in line with those who want to only bilk my congregation for as much money as I can get my hands on, sorry if my real life situation destroys your illusion of me.

Here in lies your problem. It is your arrogance that doesn't allow you to understand that every post doesn't directly relate to your personal situation.

And here I thought it was because I judged your interpretation of scripture to be wanting, I do appreciate your backtracking, because after posting what you posted directed at me in such a trolling manner like you did and like others saw you, I'd back off too.

---------- Post added April-26th-2011 at 11:16 AM ----------

ASF, the problem with this, though, is that you're presenting YOUR view of Christianity. I've been a Christian for some 20+ years and talked to many different people about it, and have been introduced to many different interpretations of Christianity, all with this authoritative tone, i.e. "my way is the right way".

Actually what I am presenting is mainstream orthodox Christianity, I'm not even into the my Methodist/Wesleyan distinctives. I find that this interpretation fits best with the scripture, reason, tradition and experience, but that doesn't mean that I believe that non-Methodists are going to Hell, in fact I believe that most of the church gets the fundamentals correct; faith in Jesus, life of love etc. As for talking to a lot of people about Christianity, first I have no idea who you talked to and what their background is, but one thing I know to be true is that the beliefs presented and held by the church as a whole often times find differences among the laity, sometimes pretty drastic differences. What's more is that not all denominations have the same ordination standards as such there are some ordained pastors who are really off on a number of fronts and just because they say "this is Christianity" doesn't mean that it necessarily is, and you don't have to just take my word for what Christianity is either, check my work see if what I have described varies from orthodox Christianity.

Even right now I have fights with my mother about what a Christian is and that I'm living my life wrong (not because of any particular sin, but because I don't tell people they need to be baptized). The preface, "I'm a Christian" is just a space-filler made to make whatever is coming after that statement sound like its coming from God Herself, and not as it is, as that person's opinion.

With all due respect to your mother, just because she says something is Christianity that doesn't mean she is holding a legitimate interpretation of scripture either, and just because she says it's a sin doesn't mean that it is, this is an example of what I talked about above in the variation of orthodox belief and belief amongst the laity.

For instance, what I've done here is give my interpretation of the Bible. I'll go ahead and say that MLK and Philip Guiley (author of "If God is Love") agree with what I say. But, nonetheless, its still my interpretation. There's still a lot I question (Is there reincarnation, for example). I remember I wrote a speech one day about "Atheist Christian", who I called people who didn't believe in God but still lived their lives based on a principle of love your neighbor. In my opinion, these people deserve no less of a reward for living a "good life" than one who is baptized and does the same.

Here's the problem, you keep going to "what I believe", and I keep asking for "what does scripture actually say", not "what are we saying about scripture". You are certainly free to believe what you want, and while we can agree to disagree on those beliefs, we aren't free to say that scripture says something that scripture doesn't say this is where rdsknbill and I are in disagreement, on those issues there are accurate and inaccurate interpretations of the text.

What you've stated here is your interpretation of the Bible, and I'm sure that there are many who agree with you.

And let's not pretend that all interpretations are created equal, if my interpretation is challenged by the authority of scripture using reason, experience and tradition, and my interpretation is found lacking then I will change my interpretation, and have over the course of my ministry and education changed my interpretations on any number of occasions.

But the problem with much of the Christian attitude is that it forms this exclusionary attitude of "I'm better than you because I'm saved", which even if you haven't said it directly, is what many are getting out of your comments in this thread.

Honestly, Freud would call that projection, just because someone sees or hears something like that in my posts even though as you said I haven't said such things then those are just assumptions that are made about me and my beliefs that aren't necessarily accurate, truly sometimes the one in error is the reader and not necessarily the author.

And if Christianity does value the great commission, then the way you're not connecting with the people who need your message the most, then you're not doing a good job at it. Jesus didn't condemn the non-believers, he helped them.

Jesus came to save all humanity, but that doesn't mean that Jesus saves non-believers against their will. What's more is that the Great Commission states, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." I'm doing just that, if someone doesn't want to listen then I respect their right to not be taught or be a disciple of Jesus.

I remember when I was dating an Atheist (life changing experience), I thought I had to talk to her about God. I remember bringing up the question of why she was an Atheist, she spoke to me with eloquence on Buddhism and Christianity, meditation, prayer, and the importance of both, the interpretations of God, the male dominance of history and how that leads to biases in the interpretations. I had some of my most "religious" talks with this person who was an Atheist. Maybe you see me as a failure as a Christian for not converting her, but I feel like I've succeeded because we both gained a lot about talking to "God", listening to "God", and understanding what it means to "love God and love your neighbor", which if they are truly the most important commandments, then these should help us both out.

I don't see you as a failure for not converting her, but then I won't call her a Christian either. You're right that those are the Greatest Commandment, but what I keep hearing is you wanting to elevate the 2nd "love your neighbor as yourself" while lowering the 1st which is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" which is to love the things of God and follow His ways. Neither one is higher than the other in fact they are taken as a whole it's not #1 and if you have time then #2, nor is it #2 and if you believe the Bible then #1, they truly are an inseparable couplet.

[authentic]

Here's the problem, you keep going to "what I believe", and I keep asking for "what does scripture actually say", not "what are we saying about scripture".

in a nutshell, this is what it all boils down to.

1 Peter 1:20-21

20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

*Either we believe this or we don't.

---------- Post added April-26th-2011 at 01:48 PM ----------

ASF, the problem with this, though, is that you're presenting YOUR view of Christianity. I've been a Christian for some 20+ years and talked to many different people about it, and have been introduced to many different interpretations of Christianity, all with this authoritative tone, i.e. "my way is the right way"..

Could you please cite an example in scripture where it would be allowable to have multiple-contradicting interpretations of scripture and ALL be correct?

-The only one i can think of from the top of my head is 2 theories (Jesus Christ is man vs Jesus Christ is God)....Both arguements could be validated by scripture and be currect on its own, yet when understood in its complete context, we come to understand that Jesus Christ (Yeshua) is God in the flesh = He's God and Man.

[AsburySkinsFan]

in a nutshell, this is what it all boils down to.

1 Peter 1:20-21

20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

*Either we believe this or we don't.

Exactly, this is what I mean when I say that interpretation of scripture is done within the community of faith, there is no single authority, instead the authority comes from gauging how our interpretation fits within the flow of interpretation as a whole. Most reject this because they reject authority, and that someone could possibly be in a position to know better than they, but here it's not one person but the Church as a whole.

---------- Post added April-26th-2011 at 03:16 PM ----------

Could you please cite an example in scripture where it would be allowable to have multiple-contradicting interpretations of scripture and ALL be correct?

-The only one i can think of from the top of my head is 2 theories (Jesus Christ is man vs Jesus Christ is God)....Both arguments could be validated by scripture and be correct on its own, yet when understood in its complete context, we come to understand that Jesus Christ (Yeshua) is God in the flesh = He's God and Man.

I would argue that this isn't so much a contradictory interpretation, but rather a complete interpretation.

I would argue instead that contradictory interpretations that both have very strong standing are the Wesleyan/Arminian and Reformed interpretations. Both are strong and are the predominant doctrines in the Protestant church as a whole, yet both see the relationship between God and humanity differently. I would see this though as one of those places where more information is needed in order to resolve the contradictions.

[authentic]

I would argue that this isn't so much a contradictory interpretation, but rather a complete interpretation.

I would argue instead that contradictory interpretations that both have very strong standing are the Wesleyan/Arminian and Reformed interpretations. Both are strong and are the predominant doctrines in the Protestant church as a whole, yet both see the relationship between God and humanity differently. I would could this though as one of those places where more information is needed in order to resolve the contradictions.

Ok, i see what you mean. Makes sense.

[Spec138]

I thought I'd post a question about the Old Testament since there's lots of discussion going on. What is your view on the OT and it's role in Christianity? I often times see it referenced in religious arguments and is usually thrown out or disregarded in favor of the NT. I've really never understood it's place, though that's my fault because the time I did spend in the church didn't involve any bible reading on my part

[AsburySkinsFan]

I thought I'd post a question about the Old Testament since there's lots of discussion going on. What is your view on the OT and it's role in Christianity? I often times see it referenced in religious arguments and is usually thrown out or disregarded in favor of the NT. I've really never understood it's place, though that's my fault because the time I did spend in the church didn't involve any bible reading on my part

The Old and New titles are a bit of a misnomer as the whole thing is the story of God's redemptive work throughout history. I do however affirm the progressive revelation of God throughout that history which tends to weigh more heavily the later writings over the earlier one's as the later one's have more of God's revelation available to them. I think of it as "we stand on the shoulders of giants and see further", Abraham was a faithful servant of God, but Moses understood God more than he because of the revelation (Law etc) that was given to him that Abraham never had, and we know more about God than Moses because of Jesus.

*edit....way after the fact.....

Yes, I have seen the OT tossed aside like a rag doll in favor of New Testament, and it was usually from (and I don't want to be stereotypical) some more of my fundamentalist friends, and every time it was done it was said that the New Testament is what matters today the Old Testament is gone. But, that is a position of ignorance because without the Old Testament there is simply no way to understand the New Testament, it's not like Jesus' words would have any meaning at all if we didn't understand the Old Testament. For instance, without the Old Testament we don't understand the sacrifice, Passover, the Law, the Commandments, the Son of Man, redemption, sinfulness of humanity etc etc. The Old Testament is every bit as important as the New, as it is the context for the New Testament. It's not like Jesus occurred in a vacuum, and even if he did then we'd never be able to understand anything about his life.

[DRSmith]

I thought I'd post a question about the Old Testament since there's lots of discussion going on. What is your view on the OT and it's role in Christianity? I often times see it referenced in religious arguments and is usually thrown out or disregarded in favor of the NT. I've really never understood it's place, though that's my fault because the time I did spend in the church didn't involve any bible reading on my part

The OT provides a blue print for what was going to happen on the larger scale

One also remember that the law code was specific to a nation

[10fttall]

I often times see it referenced in religious arguments and is usually thrown out or disregarded in favor of the NT.

I've never felt like it was thrown out or disregarded. It is a matter of understanding who it was written to, about, and for. The "law" especially the law of Moses and Levitical law, was directed specifically at the nation of Israel for their specific time in history. That's why we can eat bacon now. It serves as a record for us to see how God provided and guided for his people, pointing to a time when the Messiah, who was Jesus, would provide the ultimate sacrifice once and for all who believe. After Jesus came, the New Testament books were written, for the most part by men physically chosen by Jesus to spread the gospel. They were written to tell the story of Jesus and instruct believers how to conduct themselves. Therefore, these are the books that receive the most attention for practical guidance at this point in history.

[rdsknbill]

Oh no you didn't but you certainly implied that I was in line with those who want to only bilk my congregation for as much money as I can get my hands on, sorry if my real life situation destroys your illusion of me.

And here I thought it was because I judged your interpretation of scripture to be wanting, I do appreciate your backtracking, because after posting what you posted directed at me in such a trolling manner like you did and like others saw you, I'd back off too.

Flaming manner? It's just that you come has so condescending and arrogant that it irritates the hell out of me. You flame in your own way by looking down your nose at people and treating them as if they are beneath you. That no ones ideals are correct, if they do not EXACTLY match yours.

IF this is considered flaming , than so be it

[AsburySkinsFan]

Flaming manner? It's just that you come has so condescending and arrogant that it irritates the hell out of me. You flame in your own way by looking down your nose at people and treating them as if they are beneath you. That no ones ideals are correct, if they do not EXACTLY match yours.

IF this is considered flaming , than so be it

I said trolling.

[Kosher Ham]

ASF, Let this one go.

Don't get me wrong, I do not like being preached to, but you have never done that to me so we have always been cool.

However, you have seemed to look down at people from time to time. Whether right or wrong doesn't matter to me. I look down at Predicto because he likes skeleton women, he looks down at me because I am an idiot. People have to take the time to put things in perspective.

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF, Let this one go.

Don't get me wrong, I do not like being preached to, but you have never done that to me so we have always been cool.

However, you have seemed to look down at people from time to time. Whether right or wrong doesn't matter to me. I look down at Predicto because he likes skeleton women, he looks down at me because I am an idiot. People have to take the time to put things in perspective.

I guess what aggravates me the most about this is I challenged a certain interpretation given at the start of the thread, and instead of a rebuttal all I hear in response is that I'm condescending, if I'm wrong show me how and where I'm wrong, but no because it's religion then everyone's opinion is weighed equally and anyone who says otherwise is a condescending, arrogant, fundamentalist, jerk, that is equal to pedophile priests (I think that's just about everything that I've been called thus far). Well if that be the case then so be it. At that I will let this go, not because I think I'm wrong, but because there is dust that needs kicked off my feet.

[Kosher Ham]

That is not what I am saying.

Let it go as the bigger man. There is no reason to take on attacks when you don't have to.

Right or wrong in this situation does not matter, it's about opinion and ignorance.

You have yours, they have theirs, I have mine.

End of the day... nothing changes. Let it go.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That is not what I am saying.

Let it go as the bigger man. There is no reason to take on attacks when you don't have to.

Right or wrong in this situation does not matter, it's about opinion and ignorance.

You have yours, they have theirs, I have mine.

End of the day... nothing changes. Let it go.

:peace1:

[authentic]

I guess what aggravates me the most about this is I challenged a certain interpretation given at the start of the thread, and instead of a rebuttal all I hear in response is that I'm condescending, if I'm wrong show me how and where I'm wrong, but no because it's religion then everyone's opinion is weighed equally and anyone who says otherwise is a condescending, arrogant, fundamentalist, jerk, that is equal to pedophile priests (I think that's just about everything that I've been called thus far). Well if that be the case then so be it. At that I will let this go, not because I think I'm wrong, but because there is dust that needs kicked off my feet.

Its not you bro., ppl tend to take offense and feel condemned even when you're not condemning them. I've had it happen to me as well. But truth be told everyone feels passionately about something, and will speak authoritatively on a subject or belief that they are confident in. If so be the case (which i'm sure it is) then isn't everyone a condescending, arrogant, jerk, by definition?

[Tweedr01]

I said trolling.

yeah i was the one who said he was flaming, it just seems like he's only here to try and get a rise out of us, but so far...unsuccessful lol

[Kosher Ham]

I thought this thread was about the wrestler.

Wrong turn I guess.