Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

[Dan From Smithville]

Imo, it is not, in general, 'lacking', just muddied and redefined.

There is an objective, clear, historic definition of Christianity, from the Founder, that is still in use today. There are many tangents, offshoots, and departures, but there atill exists the unadulterated, unchanged orthodoxy that follows the biblical precedent.

Something said with a lot of words that says nothing. What are you claiming the definition to be?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is reading comprehension a disease, with progressive indoctrinees? Or is this just deliberate distortion, to promote a false narrative?

Is there a response in here among this false characterization that does not address the point?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dominionism is the theocratic idea that regardless of theological view, means, or timetable, Christians are called by God to exercise dominion over every aspect of society by taking control of political and cultural institutions.

Dominionism Rising: A Theocratic Movement Hiding in Plain ...
www.politicalresearch.org/2016/08/18/dominionism-rising-a-theocratic-movement-hiding-in-plain-sight/

Considering that Dominionism and similar movements are widely publicized and widely recognized, it is amusing that he is presenting the image of complete lack of awareness of them. These groups have the own websites. They want to be heard. I suppose then, that we are not the only ones talking to a closed door.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are both Dominionists.. Where have you been since the 1970s?

Of course, no one on here is saying that these groups represent all of Christianity. Not only would you and I not say that, we could not.

 

[shmogie]

You didn't address my point that it was submission, not free will, that is fundamental to Christian theology. As is always the case when that happens, my position doesn't change as you would expect. I continue to believe and proclaim that the central Christian message is not free will, nor love, nor salvation, but submission

You have shown that Jesus spoke of free will, but not that its use was encouraged or that He valued it. Free will is a big problem for Christianity. It allows people to not listen to proselytizing, to not observe the Sabbath, to not worship the god that its scriptures command be worshiped, to not tithe, and the like. They're called Commandments for a reason. One's contradictory opinions and free expression of them in either word or deed are most unwelcome.

The church very much wants to control the thoughts and actions of its adherents, but must grapple with their freedom to do as they please even as it condemns them for making choices it disapproves of, like getting an abortion. It hates that free will can be expressed in that area and labors to prevent the free expression of that will.

Christ acknowledging that people have free will does not make it a fundamental principle of Christianity. Christianity does not esteem free will. It deals with it as a problem.



I have already done that twice recently. Why shouldn't such things be offered as evidence?

I think my first introduction to politicized Christianity was the Moral Majority of the nineties, whose "unholy alliance with government" I recognized as potentially dangerous and something to be watched closely. I had already been an atheist for more than a decade, but I had no negative feelings about the religion until then.



Yes, atheism permits murder. It pretty much permits anything, just like aleprechaunism, or the lack of belief in leprechauns. Such people get no moral guidance from their unbelief, either. Maybe it was Pol Pot's aleprechaunism and not his atheism that caused him to kill.



Some do. I gave you the words of some prominent ones advocating for Christian rule of the government. Are you familiar with the Reconstructionist / Dominionist movement in Christianity? It's pure Handmaid's Tale stuff.

You are likely unaware of these things because you have no exposure to them and no interest in pursuing such things. You're not only not motivated to discover how Christianity affects and wants to affect the lives of non-Christians, you might be motivated to not see it when it is shown to you as is probably the case with topic.

Now that you've been exposed to these claims, you will either research them if you are interested in learning about theocratic efforts in the States, or you will be uninterested and not look into it. Do you care if there is any validity to the claim that there are efforts to promote theocracy in America?

I suspect that most Christians don't, which is not consistent with your claim that follows :



Really? Then why aren't they all speaking out against inflicting Christian beliefs on non-Christians with all of this recent anti-abortion legislation? I'll tell you why. Very few object to the church piercing the church-state wall, which is an extremely anti-American, anti-Constitution action. If you want to talk authentic founding principles, secular government would be one, and anybody advocating using government to enforce religious preferences is no friend of the Constitution.



It doesn't, which is why theocratic tendencies are un-American and un-Constitutional, and Constitution-loving Christians should object to any incursion of the church into the state.



No, I didn't say that there is something wrong with Christians running for elected office. They just need to be Americans first, and Christians second. They should be there to do the bidding of all Americans, not just the Christian ones

Mike Pence once said, " I am a Christian, a Conservative, and a Republican--in that order!" American didn't even make the list.



I don't hate Christians. You've seen me interacting with dozens of them, two on this thread including you, and there is no hatred there. What you're seeing is me disagreeing with Christians' claims about their religion - about how good and wholesome it is.

So, to you, free will means that when one voluntarily joins the Church, and voluntarily accepts the standards of the Church, they then should be able to do whatever they choose regardless of those standards.

That isn't free will, it is lying, corruption, license, and violating a sacred oath.

Actually, free will is the choosing to follow God within the Church, or choosing not to, or choosing to leave if you will not or cannot meet the standards of the Church.

It is all free will, in every case the individual makes completely free choices.

An individual exercising your kind of free will within the Church is a serious problem for both himself and the Church.

Say he has totally neglected his wife and children, and instead of providing for them, he uses up all his money on gambling and prostitutes.

He does these things by exercising what you would call free will. He totally disregards the standards he freely stated he would abide by. The Church has a responsibility first to his family to assist them in every way possible, then to him in counseling and providing resources for help with his problems.

If he exercises your free will and refuses help, or continues with his behavior, he will be removed as a member of the Church, and will be denied participation in it's serious and important activities and rites.

Oh, you say, this is an extreme example, I was only talking about small things.

It makes no difference. One may bring something to the Church Board or Board of Elders if you feel your behavior is being misinterpreted, if they agree, fine. If not, he may choose to conform, or choose to leave, or choose to be expelled.

No one is forced to join the Church, a person freely joins and understands very clearly what being a member entails. It is an extremely serious matter to accept the standards of the Church, very serious.

It is also a very serious matter to disregard the standards one has freely chosen to accept.

I once belonged to a denomination, had a leadership and teaching role within it. After prolonged study I came to the conclusion that certain doctrinal and required behaviors of the denomination were in fact errors.

I didn't whine over restrictions and doctrines I no longer accepted, I exercised my total free will, and went to another congregation who's beliefs were more in harmony with mine.

You say the Church wants to control people, that is pure codswollop.

The Church has the responsibility to ensure that what is established is followed.,In most Protestant denominations there is significant member input into financial and management issues.Members are free to address the Board as they chose. Board members are elected by the general membership.

Doctrinal issues are the purvue of the board of Elders and the Pastor. In some denominations these issues are dealt with at a higher level. I know one denomination where these issues are dealt with by duly elected representatives from around the world, from every continent..
'
The Church exists for a variety of reasons, one being the purity of doctrines found in the NT, they are not negotiable.

Someone has the free will yo join, or leave.

All Christians to a greater or less extent have had to give up something to do so. We all accepted this freely and joyfully.

The chains you contend the church uses to control people are actually ropes of sand that controls no one. If a member cannot abide what they freely accepted, nothing is restricting them from leaving.

'The Church wants people who happily serve. It does not want people are out of harmony with it. It wants people who will stand with it's doctrines and beliefs, to death if it is required.

If being a member is full of anger and rebellion, then that member should shed those feelings elsewhere.

 

[shmogie]

You didn't address my point that it was submission, not free will, that is fundamental to Christian theology. As is always the case when that happens, my position doesn't change as you would expect. I continue to believe and proclaim that the central Christian message is not free will, nor love, nor salvation, but submission

You have shown that Jesus spoke of free will, but not that its use was encouraged or that He valued it. Free will is a big problem for Christianity. It allows people to not listen to proselytizing, to not observe the Sabbath, to not worship the god that its scriptures command be worshiped, to not tithe, and the like. They're called Commandments for a reason. One's contradictory opinions and free expression of them in either word or deed are most unwelcome.

The church very much wants to control the thoughts and actions of its adherents, but must grapple with their freedom to do as they please even as it condemns them for making choices it disapproves of, like getting an abortion. It hates that free will can be expressed in that area and labors to prevent the free expression of that will.

Christ acknowledging that people have free will does not make it a fundamental principle of Christianity. Christianity does not esteem free will. It deals with it as a problem.



I have already done that twice recently. Why shouldn't such things be offered as evidence?

I think my first introduction to politicized Christianity was the Moral Majority of the nineties, whose "unholy alliance with government" I recognized as potentially dangerous and something to be watched closely. I had already been an atheist for more than a decade, but I had no negative feelings about the religion until then.



Yes, atheism permits murder. It pretty much permits anything, just like aleprechaunism, or the lack of belief in leprechauns. Such people get no moral guidance from their unbelief, either. Maybe it was Pol Pot's aleprechaunism and not his atheism that caused him to kill.



Some do. I gave you the words of some prominent ones advocating for Christian rule of the government. Are you familiar with the Reconstructionist / Dominionist movement in Christianity? It's pure Handmaid's Tale stuff.

You are likely unaware of these things because you have no exposure to them and no interest in pursuing such things. You're not only not motivated to discover how Christianity affects and wants to affect the lives of non-Christians, you might be motivated to not see it when it is shown to you as is probably the case with topic.

Now that you've been exposed to these claims, you will either research them if you are interested in learning about theocratic efforts in the States, or you will be uninterested and not look into it. Do you care if there is any validity to the claim that there are efforts to promote theocracy in America?

I suspect that most Christians don't, which is not consistent with your claim that follows :



Really? Then why aren't they all speaking out against inflicting Christian beliefs on non-Christians with all of this recent anti-abortion legislation? I'll tell you why. Very few object to the church piercing the church-state wall, which is an extremely anti-American, anti-Constitution action. If you want to talk authentic founding principles, secular government would be one, and anybody advocating using government to enforce religious preferences is no friend of the Constitution.



It doesn't, which is why theocratic tendencies are un-American and un-Constitutional, and Constitution-loving Christians should object to any incursion of the church into the state.



No, I didn't say that there is something wrong with Christians running for elected office. They just need to be Americans first, and Christians second. They should be there to do the bidding of all Americans, not just the Christian ones

Mike Pence once said, " I am a Christian, a Conservative, and a Republican--in that order!" American didn't even make the list.



I don't hate Christians. You've seen me interacting with dozens of them, two on this thread including you, and there is no hatred there. What you're seeing is me disagreeing with Christians' claims about their religion - about how good and wholesome it is.

Now to the abortion issue, that you say is driven by Religious motives, perhaps, but if there were not significant legal issues that are unsettled, it would be legally locked down tight.

Are you not aware that many legal scholars, including many pro abortion scholars consider Roe, sloppy, bad law ?

Are you not aware that Roe provided for advances in medical knowledge re the unborn child, and it's status as a person ?

Do you not know that in most states murdering a pregnant mother is considered a double homicide ?

You must know that until 1973 abortion was mostly illegal in the US ? Plenty of precedent there,

I have never argued for the abolishment of abortion from my religious view, which is that all should be banned.

I have always argued within the framework of the Constitution.

I have always argued that at the beginning of the second trimester the unborn child is a person and has the right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Remember, Roe provided for advances in medical knowledge in relation to the decision, and implied that if those advances are significant, the issue should be revisited. Those advances are here.

You lament the current spate of abortion legislation. I don't know why. It is right out of liberal 101, if the people can't or won't give you what you want, have a court do it.

The legislation is for one purpose, to compel the Supreme Court to do it's job. To have roe and all it's ambiguities and faulty conclusions addressed.

Past courts have simply flapped in the wind on the issue. they knew Roe is bad law, but they were terrified to address it,with a truly Constitutional decision, which would ensure that a whole lot of people will have their nose out of joint, they don't care about the law, they only want what they want,

The Supremes will have to decide, the days of looking the other way to cover their butts are gone.

We will then know whether an unborn child who looks like a person, internally functions as a person, has it's own genetic make up, and may even have a different blood type from it's mother, is a person.

We will know whether intervening to kill this unborn person, making it's totally functional heart stop beating is murder of a person.

I am very optimistic about the outcome.

 

[paarsurrey]

Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

13. The bible is full of errors.
14. The bible has changed many times.

The above is true about Christianity.

Regards

 

[Wandering Monk]

This thread has devolved into futility. See ya.

 

[usfan]

Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

13. The bible is full of errors.
14. The bible has changed many times.

The above is true about Christianity.

Regards

Good assertion.
..but no evidence. It is, in fact, a phony narrative.

 

[usfan]

I still await any evidence for this list, or any of the additions, or new ones, if you desire.

1. Make the claim: 'Christianity is xxx!'
2. Provide the evidence

I can then examine the evidence, and offer a rebuttal. I cannot rebut assertions, just dismiss them.

And the old forum bluff, 'i gave you tons of evidence already!' ..but nothing given, won't work with me. I'll just assume you are a deceptive propagandist, intent only on disruption.

 

[Riders]

Good assertion.
..but no evidence. It is, in fact, a phony narrative.

Sense you claim the bible is perfect your the one who needs to probe it, and no one here has done it yet.

 

[Riders]

I still await any evidence for this list, or any of the additions, or new ones, if you desire.

1. Make the claim: 'Christianity is xxx!'
2. Provide the evidence

I can then examine the evidence, and offer a rebuttal. I cannot rebut assertions, just dismiss them.

And the old forum bluff, 'i gave you tons of evidence already!' ..but nothing given, won't work with me. I'll just assume you are a deceptive propagandist, intent only on disruption.

You have not proven the bible is perfect and true, until you do it is true to believe the bible is not reliable.

 

[sojourner]

Good assertion.
..but no evidence. It is, in fact, a phony narrative.

No it’s not. There’s plenty of evidence. Plenty. You just don’t want to see it, or else you’re twisting the definitions of “error” and “changed.”

Two examples:
1) error: There is 0 evidence for an invasion into Canaan. The Hebrews likely we’re there all the time. This doesn’t jibe with Exodus.
2) change: The whole last chapter of Mark is a later addition. That constitutes change.

 

[Riders]

No it’s not. There’s plenty of evidence. Plenty. You just don’t want to see it, or else you’re twisting the definitions of “error” and “changed.”

Two examples:
1) error: There is 0 evidence for an invasion into Canaan. The Hebrews likely we’re there all the time. This doesn’t jibe with Exodus.
2) change: The whole last chapter of Mark is a later addition. That constitutes change.

Not to mention all the books that are left out.

 

[paarsurrey]

Good assertion.
..but no evidence. It is, in fact, a phony narrative.

Jesus did not die on the Cross, yet Bible believers maintain that Jesus died on the Cross. Had he died on the Cross, then his friends would have prayed the last funeral prayer of him, but they did not, that gives a clue that they maintained that Jesus was alive. Right, please/

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus did not die on the Cross, yet Bible believers maintain that Jesus died on the Cross. Had he died on the Cross, then his friends would have prayed the last funeral prayer of him, but they did not, that gives a clue that they maintained that Jesus was alive. Right, please/

Regards

How are you going to prove that? You made the claim, that puts the burden of proof upon yourself.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus did not die on the Cross, yet Bible believers maintain that Jesus died on the Cross. Had he died on the Cross, then his friends would have prayed the last funeral prayer of him, but they did not, that gives a clue that they maintained that Jesus was alive. Right, please/

Regards

The Romans would have made sure they finished the job. Highly likely Jesus died on the cross.

 

[Ancient Soul]

You will find that Christians are always deceptive.

Ah, good..
Another narrative to add to the list!



Funny how propaganda works on people. Just keep repeating the lies loudly, in 3 part harmony, and the indoctrinees glaze over and nod like bobbleheads..

Thanks for proving my point for me. Well done!

 

[Spartan]

2) change: The whole last chapter of Mark is a later addition. That constitutes change.

No, just verses 16:9-20 are disputed, not 16:1-8.

 

[sojourner]

No, just verses 16:9-20 are disputed, not 16:1-8.

Still constitutes change. My point stands.