[Old Man G Funk]

The problem is that I was for a time what you would have defined a Christian (due to what you could term indoctrination as a child) yet deliberately chose to pursue a non-christian life and most definitely would not have described myself, or thought of myself as Christian.

I see your point that if someone professes to be Christian and uses biblical justification to undertake what would be viewed as evil 'non-christian' acts then how would they not be Christian. However I have known 'vegetarians' who eat chicken...

Certainly self-identity can be an issue in a case like this. If one doesn't define oneself as a Christian, it's usually a good idea not to force it on that person. That is, however, the opposite of this case.

Another problem with someone who undertakes "evil non-christian" acts is that "evil" is also in the eye of the beholder. Mr Phelps probably thinks that the gays are the evil ones and that he is doing a public service (and thereby loving his neighbors) by standing up to the 'evil' of homosexuality.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Fluff, I like your "location"............funny.

He's had it for a while.

Andyman, I'm not trying to dis you and I'm not trying to fight dirty by making false assumptions about your reasons for doing/saying what you do. I am simply trying to point out that your argument against Mr. Phelps is not a good one to make.

 

[Andyman_1970]

He's had it for a while.

Andyman, I'm not trying to dis you and I'm not trying to fight dirty by making false assumptions about your reasons for doing/saying what you do. I am simply trying to point out that your argument against Mr. Phelps is not a good one to make.

*why do I do this..slaps forehead*

And I disagree, I go back to the whole 1 John 4:20........[paraphrase]if you say you love God but hate your brother (adelphos in the Greek which means neighbor or countryman) you're a liar. I think John clearly links loving others with loving God. This is exactly what I would ask Mr. Phelps........how he "gets around that" in his teachings.

My motivations is not to prove my "brand" of Christianity is better.........maybe a better way of phrasing it is asking a rhetorical question out loud of how some Christians "get around" that passage in John when they appear to blatantly be disrespectful to others.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

And I disagree, I go back to the whole 1 John 4:20........[paraphrase]if you say you love God but hate your brother (adelphos in the Greek which means neighbor or countryman) you're a liar. I think John clearly links loving others with loving God. This is exactly what I would ask Mr. Phelps........how he "gets around that" in his teachings.

He could reply with many different things. I'm sure he has tons of reasons for his behavior and he can probably point to numerous scriptural passages (I can probably do it too.)

Maybe he would say that they aren't being violent, so they aren't hurting anyone. He could say that they are standing up against something that god says is wrong, which would be honoring and loving god as well as their neighbors (because it is generally good for society when people speak out against wrongs.) He could say a lot of things.

Besides, the only reason that you would be able to pin him into a corner is if you could frame the debate such that YOUR interpretation was correct. But, you can't do that. He could easily say that you are misinterpreting the scripture and he is following more of god's commands than you are, so you are the one who is not a true Christian. Do you understand why using the No True Scotsman fallacy is useless now?

My motivations is not to prove my "brand" of Christianity is better.........maybe a better way of phrasing it is asking a rhetorical question out loud of how some Christians "get around" that passage in John when they appear to blatantly be disrespectful to others.

You are motivated by keeping Christianity's "good" name though, aren't you? And, by doing that, then you are more comfortable with being labeled a Christian, are you not?

Also, see how you bristled when I tried to guess at your motivations? Aren't you doing the same to Mr. Phelps?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Besides, the only reason that you would be able to pin him into a corner is if you could frame the debate such that YOUR interpretation was correct. But, you can't do that. He could easily say that you are misinterpreting the scripture and he is following more of god's commands than you are, so you are the one who is not a true Christian. Do you understand why using the No True Scotsman fallacy is useless now?

Would you agree that interpreting the Scripture from the mindset and in light of the culture of the people that wrote it is more "accurate" (understanding that absolute accuracy is not possible due to the time gap involved) that a dogmatic approach?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Would you agree that interpreting the Scripture from the mindset and in light of the culture of the people that wrote it is more "accurate" (understanding that absolute accuracy is not possible due to the time gap involved) that a dogmatic approach?

Really that depends on what you mean by "accurate". As you say, people have had the power to bind and loose, so going back to the original intent might ignore the binding and loosing that has happened since.

Also, society has evolved over that time as well, and we tend to put our own societal spin on things. I highly doubt that a religion borne out of a violent culture that lived in the midst of a violent region during a violent time in history would say that one simply must love god and one's neighbor in order to follow the religion's teachings. I think that the peaceful "teachings" of the modern day church are influenced more by society than by the actual text of the books. Also, it is society that has evolved beyond things like slavery, not context of the books themselves.

 

[ummbikes]

Really that depends on what you mean by "accurate". As you say, people have had the power to bind and loose, so going back to the original intent might ignore the binding and loosing that has happened since.

You have a vaild point here.

I know some of the Quakers are more open to influnence of the Holy Spirit, even it it means doing something unusual or contrary to the norm.

After a series of legitmate supernatural events it could be possible to arrive at a very different place theologically than you began.

Looking at American church history we have had massive cultural change 220 years. My denomonation (Free Methodist) was created as a response to pew taxes and slavery. Pretty progressive leftist stuff back in the 1860's. We are now much more good old boy, old school, theologically conservative as compared to the United Methodists. The Lutherans have had divisions, Baptists, shoot people have have changed. There are societal shifts, so why not in the church too. That said, God is never changing. People, yes. God, no.

 

[fluff]

I highly doubt that a religion borne out of a violent culture that lived in the midst of a violent region during a violent time in history would say that one simply must love god and one's neighbor in order to follow the religion's teachings.

You mean during the Pax Romanus? A religion endorsed by the Imperial overlords? There is a theory that says that Christianity was an opportunistic high-jacking of the Judaist monotheistic model with a more peaceful, empire-accepting tone...

 

[Reactor]

He could reply with many different things. I'm sure he has tons of reasons for his behavior and he can probably point to numerous scriptural passages (I can probably do it too.)


{stuff deleted}

Also, see how you bristled when I tried to guess at your motivations? Aren't you doing the same to Mr. Phelps?

Mr. (and I use that term loosely) Phelps is a lawyer who was so vile, he was barred from federal practice, and I believe completely disbarred, before he suddenly found "God", and of course, interpreted the bible in ways that benefited him. He was the worst type of personal injury lawyer, frequently dredging up "clients" for small claims against large corporations, claims so small (<$5000)they were always settled out of court. Many of his cases were patently false. most of the others were highly dubious. He created so much work for the one judge in his district he hadn't accused of conflict of interest, that the judge spent more than half of his time just working on Phelps cases. He is by all accounts racist, bigoted, self-serving, and narcissistic. In short he's pretty much the dictionary definition of evil. If there is anyone who professes to be Christian, and accepts Mr. Phelps as such, I have no hope.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Really that depends on what you mean by "accurate". As you say, people have had the power to bind and loose, so going back to the original intent might ignore the binding and loosing that has happened since.

But would you agree that the best way to acertain the authors intent is to veiw the Scriptures through the "eyes" of the culture of the time of the author (as best as it can be understood today).

I'm boiling it down to myself and Mr. Phelps, and emphasis on history and the culture or dogma..........which do you think is more "accurate" (I use that term loosely of course) to what the orginal author intended?

 

[JRogers]

You mean during the Pax Romanus? A religion endorsed by the Imperial overlords? There is a theory that says that Christianity was an opportunistic high-jacking of the Judaist monotheistic model with a more peaceful, empire-accepting tone...

Ridiculous...If anything, one could say that Christianity was hijacked into such a thing...

 

[Silver]

He is by all accounts racist, bigoted, self-serving, and narcissistic. In short he's pretty much the dictionary definition of evil. If there is anyone who professes to be Christian, and accepts Mr. Phelps as such, I have no hope.

Same problem here that Islam has. Moderate Muslims may not approve of flying planes into buildings to protest Western Imperialism or burning down embassy buildings in reaction to a cartoon, but a lot of them at some level (I realize the words "lot" and "some" are in that sentence, make sure you do before you jump all over me) are sympathetic to their aims.

So, while many Christians wouldn't agree with Phelps's methods, you'd be hard pressed to find many that didn't at some some level agree with his aims. That's why politicians can demonize homosexuals and use them as a wedge issue in the first place.

(As an aside, personally speaking, one of the moments growing up where I realized that I wasn't a Christian was when I was having a heated argument with my fellow young Christians about whether or not killing abortion providers was such a bad thing. There were a lot of people shrugging in the room.)

 

[Andyman_1970]

(As an aside, personally speaking, one of the moments growing up where I realized that I wasn't a Christian was when I was having a heated argument with my fellow young Christians about whether or not killing abortion providers was such a bad thing. There were a lot of people shrugging in the room.)

...........WOW

 

[fluff]

OK, stop. We made seven pages...

 

[Andyman_1970]

Did anyone see 60 minutes last night about the embryo's?

It really amazed me that it was preferable to leave embryo's frozen indefinitely to be destoyed slowly over time rather than to use them for stem cell research.......if they are going to be destroyed anyway why not get a benefit out of them to help others? What I thought was really odd was that a couple could elect to destroy the embryo's without question, but if they elect for them to be used for research (which would result in their destruction) that some how is wrong?

I guess I'm not "Christain enough" to get how this is not hypocritical.

 

[fluff]

Did anyone see 60 minutes last night about the embryo's?

It really amazed me that it was preferable to leave embryo's frozen indefinitely to be destoyed slowly over time rather than to use them for stem cell research.......if they are going to be destroyed anyway why not get a benefit out of them to help others? What I thought was really odd was that a couple could elect to destroy the embryo's without question, but if they elect for them to be used for research (which would result in their destruction) that some how is wrong?

I guess I'm not "Christain enough" to get how this is not hypocritical.

Look, that's a whole other thread...

 

[Andyman_1970]

Look, that's a whole other thread...

Oh yeah I know..........I was just making a comment about what I saw, I was not really up on the whole issue.........anyway I'll shut up and let this thread die a respectful death...........

 

[fluff]

"Christain enough"

Was that deliberate?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Did anyone see 60 minutes last night about the embryo's?

It really amazed me that it was preferable to leave embryo's frozen indefinitely to be destoyed slowly over time rather than to use them for stem cell research.......if they are going to be destroyed anyway why not get a benefit out of them to help others? What I thought was really odd was that a couple could elect to destroy the embryo's without question, but if they elect for them to be used for research (which would result in their destruction) that some how is wrong?

I guess I'm not "Christain enough" to get how this is not hypocritical.

Amen to that. It's ridiculous that they would rather throw embryos out than use them to possibly cure diseases.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

But would you agree that the best way to acertain the authors intent is to veiw the Scriptures through the "eyes" of the culture of the time of the author (as best as it can be understood today).

It may be. I don't think you are doing that anymore than Mr. Phelps or other Christians are, however. You seem to be leaving out big parts of the scripture and attaching your own wants and needs to the interpretation.

I'm boiling it down to myself and Mr. Phelps, and emphasis on history and the culture or dogma..........which do you think is more "accurate" (I use that term loosely of course) to what the orginal author intended?

Considering that we have no idea who the original authors were, except for Paul (and how much do we really know about him?) it's hard to say what the intent was, especially coming from so many different authors. Still, concentrating on certain passages while ignoring others doesn't mean that one is more closely following the intent of the author.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Mr. (and I use that term loosely) Phelps is a lawyer who was so vile, he was barred from federal practice, and I believe completely disbarred, before he suddenly found "God", and of course, interpreted the bible in ways that benefited him. He was the worst type of personal injury lawyer, frequently dredging up "clients" for small claims against large corporations, claims so small (<$5000)they were always settled out of court. Many of his cases were patently false. most of the others were highly dubious. He created so much work for the one judge in his district he hadn't accused of conflict of interest, that the judge spent more than half of his time just working on Phelps cases. He is by all accounts racist, bigoted, self-serving, and narcissistic. In short he's pretty much the dictionary definition of evil. If there is anyone who professes to be Christian, and accepts Mr. Phelps as such, I have no hope.

But, he does accept Jesus as his lord and savior and he does believe in the divinity of god and Jesus. It's still a No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You mean during the Pax Romanus? A religion endorsed by the Imperial overlords? There is a theory that says that Christianity was an opportunistic high-jacking of the Judaist monotheistic model with a more peaceful, empire-accepting tone...

The Pax Romanus was still a violent time. There were no civil wars and no external wars, but there was plenty of rebellion and many of those were put down in bloody ways. For example, a rebellion of the Jews was put down around 70 C.E. and the Romans went so far as to destroy the temple there.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Was that deliberate?

No it's Monday morning and I can't type/spell.............

 

[fluff]

The Pax Romanus was still a violent time. There were no civil wars and no external wars, but there was plenty of rebellion and many of those were put down in bloody ways. For example, a rebellion of the Jews was put down around 70 C.E. and the Romans went so far as to destroy the temple there.

Christianity was hardly a mainstream religion in Israel in 70CE

 

[Andyman_1970]

Christianity was hardly a mainstream religion in Israel in 70CE

It was considered as sect of Judaism circa 70CE, some scholars number the Messianic Jews during that time (the time period that correlates with the end of the book of Acts) from anywhere between 1 - 2 million. From what I understand, the largest sect in Judaism, the Pharisees, were the biggest "converts" to Messianic Judaism.

IMO I don't think Christianity was considered "separate" from Judaism until after 70CE with the destruction of the Temple and the civil wars that separated the Gentile and Jewish beleivers.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Christianity was hardly a mainstream religion in Israel in 70CE

Obviously, but that was about the time that Paul was creating the religion.

 

[fluff]

damn 8 pages

 

[Old Man G Funk]

damn 8 pages

What's the record around here?

 

[Andyman_1970]

I think we had one "back in the day" when I was a noob that went into the double digits...........

 

[fluff]

What's the record around here?

Is the G for Geek...?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Is the G for Geek...?

No, but I am a geek.

 

[particle bored]

this is an interesting thread. Andyman has the evasions down pretty well. Old Man G Funk pushes hard but has a fatal flaw in his main angle of attack, namely that "morality" has evolved beyond what the Bible holds because "society" has evolved beyond what existed when the Bible was written.

this is flawed for several reasons.

1) the Bible was written over a long period of time. there was no "fixed culture" of the Bible era.

2) morality can exist independent of a culture. it can be an entirely personal choice.

3) cultures may vary in their legal framework. however, if you think that law and morality are the same, you don't understand either morality or the law very well.

 

[particle bored]

Did anyone see 60 minutes last night about the embryo's?

It really amazed me that it was preferable to leave embryo's frozen indefinitely to be destoyed slowly over time rather than to use them for stem cell research.......if they are going to be destroyed anyway why not get a benefit out of them to help others? What I thought was really odd was that a couple could elect to destroy the embryo's without question, but if they elect for them to be used for research (which would result in their destruction) that some how is wrong?

I guess I'm not "Christain enough" to get how this is not hypocritical.

what about the ethical and moral questions regarding whether it is proper or humane to use stem cells in the first place... regardless of their origin in an embryo, an aborted fetus, or any other in vivo or in vitro site.

anyone who thinks that the only viable objection to stem cell research is "Christian" just doesn't have a wide appreciation for the full complex of issues involved in the stem cell research arena.

 

[Changleen]

this is an interesting thread. Andyman has the evasions down pretty well. Old Man G Funk pushes hard but has a fatal flaw in his main angle of attack, namely that "morality" has evolved beyond what the Bible holds because "society" has evolved beyond what existed when the Bible was written.

this is flawed for several reasons.

1) the Bible was written over a long period of time. there was no "fixed culture" of the Bible era.

The Bible is no longer being written, and stopped being written some time ago. Society HAS moved on.

2) morality can exist independent of a culture. it can be an entirely personal choice.

I think that's kind of implied. He's talking about general societal morals rather than those that might be specifically held by an individual. Damn if they got into that this thread would be even more labourious.

3) cultures may vary in their legal framework. however, if you think that law and morality are the same, you don't understand either morality or the law very well.

Don't quite see how the law has much to do with this... Mind you I skimmed the last few pages.

 

[Andyman_1970]

this is an interesting thread. Andyman has the evasions down pretty well.

Gee thanks.................I think............

1) the Bible was written over a long period of time. there was no "fixed culture" of the Bible era..

True, esspecially the culture shift from the OT to the NT, but the NT culture was pretty fixed, the Hebraic culture of the authors and the Greek culture of the audience for example of Paul's letters.....

 

[Old Man G Funk]

what about the ethical and moral questions regarding whether it is proper or humane to use stem cells in the first place... regardless of their origin in an embryo, an aborted fetus, or any other in vivo or in vitro site.

anyone who thinks that the only viable objection to stem cell research is "Christian" just doesn't have a wide appreciation for the full complex of issues involved in the stem cell research arena.

No one is saying that the only viable objection is "Christian".

Do you have any ethical and moral questions regarding stem cells that are not Christian derived (or from other religions?) Either way, do you think that we are better off discarding them? To me, it makes no sense to destroy the embryo and not take the stem cells.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The Bible is no longer being written, and stopped being written some time ago. Society HAS moved on.
I think that's kind of implied. He's talking about general societal morals rather than those that might be specifically held by an individual. Damn if they got into that this thread would be even more labourious.
Don't quite see how the law has much to do with this... Mind you I skimmed the last few pages.

What Changleen said.