Why do conservative christian fundamentalists tend not to follow their own bible?

[Father Heathen]

I don't know, not attempting to reason with someone is intollereant don't you think?

What do you think people have been trying to do on this very forum since forever?

I have seen displays of hostility and prejudice on both sides. Pot meet Kettle.

I don't know, what particular rights and freedoms have we tried to deny or take away from others?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I don't know, what particular rights and freedoms have we tried to deny or take away from others?

I'm thinking of the second amendment for one. How much longer before it comes under attack?

FH, I am willing to admit to hypocrisy on my side of the isle, are you?

You turn us all upside down, we pretty much look the same don't you think?

 

[McBell]

I'm thinking of the second amendment for one. How much longer before it comes under attack?

You are using the possibility of a future attack as a defense?

 

[Reverend Rick]

You are using the possibility of a future attack as a defense?

No, I am using the probability of a future attack. I have a two year old e-mail from Obama answering this very issue. I know you love proof Mestemia, if you think I am a liar, I would be glad to forward the e-mail to you.

Do you think only one side is interested in constricting the rights of the other side?

 

[Magic Man]

He tells me that if you bring the beer, he'll save you a spot at the table for our next poker game.

Sweet! But who's bringing the strippers?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Nice.
You did nothing but appeal to divinity.

Sweet! But who's bringing the strippers?

There will be a factory that creates strippers. Pasta be on your plate, Mestemia.

 

[Magic Man]

No, I am using the probability of a future attack. I have a two year old e-mail from Obama answering this very issue. I know you love proof Mestemia, if you think I am a liar, I would be glad to forward the e-mail to you.

In other words, you're using the possibility of a future attack. By definition, if it's in the future, it's only a possibility. How good of a possibility it is is irrelevant.

Do you think only one side is interested in constricting the rights of the other side?

All of us have "constricted" rights. I can't murder someone. I can't steal a car, etc. For most laws, there is a very good reason to constrict the rights, such as murder and theft unnecessarily infringe on the rights of others. So far, it seems that the religious right (and other conservatives, I guess) is the only party that wants to constrict rights simply because they feel the actions are wrong.

 

[Magic Man]

There will be a factory that creates strippers.

Hmmmm...I'm not so sure Jesus would approve of that.

 

[Oberon]

I'm not sure if you realize it, but one of the side effects of your argument is that it implicitly declares the Great Commission to be invalid. If Jesus was only concerned about the Jews and taught this to their followers, then what exactly have all these Christians been doing evangelizing to Gentiles for nearly 2,000 years?

Now, I don't think this necessarily refutes your position, but it does create issues that are fundamentally problematic for virtually every form of Christianity.

I think it is a problem, but as I'm not Christian it isn't a problem for me. I kno, however, that different Christian scholars have confronted the issue through a variety of methods. For example, some argue that although Jesus was initially concerned only with the Jews, or seemed to be, he would have gone on to preach to the gentiles had he not been killed before this was possible. Others posit that perhaps he gave later commands to his followers of which we have no record. Still others believe that while he was not concerned with preaching to the gentiles, he left room for them in the coming kingdom, and therefore it was only natural his followers attempt to bring those gentiles into the kingdom. And such reasoning goes on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it is a problem, but as I'm not Christian it isn't a problem for me. I kno, however, that different Christian scholars have confronted the issue through a variety of methods. For example, some argue that although Jesus was initially concerned only with the Jews, or seemed to be, he would have gone on to preach to the gentiles had he not been killed before this was possible. Others posit that perhaps he gave later commands to his followers of which we have no record. Still others believe that while he was not concerned with preaching to the gentiles, he left room for them in the coming kingdom, and therefore it was only natural his followers attempt to bring those gentiles into the kingdom. And such reasoning goes on.

My personal feeling is that this comes out of the fact that in practical terms, Christianity is actually based more on Paul than on Jesus, IMO.

 

[McBell]

In other words, you're using the possibility of a future attack. By definition, if it's in the future, it's only a possibility. How good of a possibility it is is irrelevant.

I was hoping that I was not the only one who caught that...

All of us have "constricted" rights. I can't murder someone. I can't steal a car, etc. For most laws, there is a very good reason to constrict the rights, such as murder and theft unnecessarily infringe on the rights of others. So far, it seems that the religious right (and other conservatives, I guess) is the only party that wants to constrict rights simply because they feel the actions are wrong.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Seriously, I couldn't have.

 

[Autodidact]

I'll sum it up for you.... There is a major difference between a Christian and a saved person.

Most people, incorrectly I might ad, use the term Christian to depict their belief in Jesus the Christ. In reality, the word Christian means to be "Christ like" or to live your life the way Christ did.

These sentences contradict each other. A word means whatever most people use it to mean. If most people use the word "Christian" to mean people who believe in "Jesus the Christ," then that's what it means.

To live your life the way Christ did: to live as an itinerant preacher with no regular means of support? To never have sex? To repudiate your own parents? To be executed by the state? To perform miracles? To tell other people how to live their lives? To claim to be the son of God? In what way exactly would people have to live their lives like Christ?

Many people are of the Christian faith but are not "Christians". Just like many people pay their taxes, but not all Heads of the Treasury Department do so. Sorry, I couldn't help myself....

It's the non-Christians who label themselves as "Christian", speaking of their faith and not their way of life, which gives the wrong impression of what true Christianity is all about.

So let me get what you're saying here. If someone tells me that they're Christian, I should be suspicious of the truth of what they're saying? I should generally be doubtful of people who call themselves Christian?

Do you call yourself Christian?

 

[Autodidact]

I'm thinking of the second amendment for one. How much longer before it comes under attack?

FH, I am willing to admit to hypocrisy on my side of the isle, are you?

You turn us all upside down, we pretty much look the same don't you think?

Are you trying to say that Jesus preached in favor of the right to bear arms???

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm thinking of the second amendment for one. How much longer before it comes under attack?

Much quicker than before, I think, given the right-wing attack on the Bill of Rights in general. They've made it quite clear that they think that the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments don't need to be respected; I'd be hard-pressed to come up with an argument for why the second amendment has some special status that those other ones don't.

 

[Oberon]

My personal feeling is that this comes out of the fact that in practical terms, Christianity is actually based more on Paul than on Jesus, IMO.

Well, though often their is a tendency to see Paul as the first "apostle to the Gentiles" he actually wasn't. He has gained primacy largely because we have such a clear record (comparatively) of him. Yet others were there before him preaching to the gentiles and carrying Jesus' message to them. Also, we shouldn't underestimate how much Paul's worldview and message was influenced by the Jesus tradition which was passed on to him. So I would say that while there is some truth to what you say, Christianity is far more based on the message of Jesus than Paul.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, though often their is a tendency to see Paul as the first "apostle to the Gentiles" he actually wasn't. He has gained primacy largely because we have such a clear record (comparatively) of him. Yet others were there before him preaching to the gentiles and carrying Jesus' message to them.

But the Christianity we have today descended from Paul, not from any other early "apostles to the Gentiles".

Also, we shouldn't underestimate how much Paul's worldview and message was influenced by the Jesus tradition which was passed on to him. So I would say that while there is some truth to what you say, Christianity is far more based on the message of Jesus than Paul.

I think that we need to distinguish between two different traditions:

- the Christ tradition, in which the Son of God is presented to God as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of humanity.
- the Jesus tradition, in which a religious leader wanders Judea preaching his ideas on a number of topics.

When we break it down that way, I see quite a bit of the Christ tradition in Paul's Epistles, but little to nothing of the Jesus tradition. Paul seems to have grasped onto the idea of the crucifixion and resurrection, but threw away (or was never exposed to) the Sermon on the Mount... or at least that's the impression I have.

 

[Luminous]

No it does not..Brain whashing can happen without deprivation...It can happen in childhood with loving parents.Who do not "isolate their children"..AND it can happen in adulthod..After you have been conditioned to count and trust on other peoples bull crap.

Love

Dallas

i believe brain washing means: changing someones mind through deceptive means(on purpose or not) such as chemical, phisical, emotional, etc or making them fall for logical fallacies.

 

[ChristineES]

If Christians were truly brainwashed, then there wouldn't much of leaving the faith, but as I have seen here and in other places, there are a lot of people who have left the Christian faith for either a different faith or to no faith. (That point can be argued, I know. )

If Christianity and other religions brainwash people, then it can be said that anything a parent teaches can be called brainwashing. Is being taught to be polite (and to say please and thank you)a form of brainwashing? How about being told to wash your hands before you cook or eat? How about a father teaching his children about the basics of football or some other sport and watching and keeping up with favorite teams? And politics can be included to the list, too. In fact, school can be accused of brainwashing as well. Now, I am not saying that these things are brainwashing, I am saying that teaching of faith from parents to children isn't usually brainwashing either.

 

[Ringer]

People seem to call it brainwashing when it deals with something they don't like. Yet, if it's something they don't mind, it's called educating. Either way, when the person grows up and is able to think on their own, they are responsible for their own beliefs regardless of what they were brainwashed/educated with during childhood.

 

[jacobweymouth]

I'd be hard-pressed to come up with an argument for why the second amendment has some special status that those other ones don't.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the others.