Lethal threat to my Christian faith: its apparent plasticity
| Curious plaza main people | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | brindle native | 11/15/17 | | mind-boggling step-uncle's house feces | 11/15/17 | | Curious plaza main people | 11/15/17 | | Razzle-dazzle blue pervert | 11/15/17 | | ungodly sex offender chad | 11/15/17 | | Curious plaza main people | 11/15/17 | | Razzle-dazzle blue pervert | 11/15/17 | | anal brunch water buffalo | 11/15/17 | | Curious plaza main people | 11/15/17 | | mustard stead | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | topaz reading party | 11/15/17 | | Coiffed Mentally Impaired Library | 11/15/17 | | ungodly sex offender chad | 11/15/17 | | Curious plaza main people | 11/15/17 | | Sapphire university gaming laptop | 11/15/17 | | Apoplectic hot senate circlehead | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Curious plaza main people | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Curious plaza main people | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Curious plaza main people | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | topaz reading party | 11/15/17 | | Aquamarine Masturbator Mood | 11/15/17 | | topaz reading party | 11/15/17 | | Aquamarine Masturbator Mood | 11/15/17 | | topaz reading party | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | topaz reading party | 11/15/17 | | naked boiling water | 11/15/17 | | carnelian theater stage striped hyena | 11/15/17 | | narrow-minded locale community account | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | naked boiling water | 11/15/17 | | Curious plaza main people | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | topaz reading party | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Dun twisted house | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Dun twisted house | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Dun twisted house | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Dun twisted house | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Dun twisted house | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Dun twisted house | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Dun twisted house | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | Curious plaza main people | 11/15/17 | | Dun twisted house | 11/15/17 | | Curious plaza main people | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | Dun twisted house | 11/15/17 | | Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma | 11/15/17 | | Dun twisted house | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | glittery business firm cumskin | 11/15/17 | | Comical disturbing kitty cat | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Peach corn cake stock car | 11/15/17 | | Cocky casino pocket flask | 11/15/17 | | aggressive sable quadroon national | 11/15/17 | | Shimmering box office | 11/15/17 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 15th, 2017 9:04 AM Author: Curious plaza main people
Perhaps some other Christmos can help save me here.
I think it's readily apparent that our fundamental understanding of Christianity now would be abhorrent to Christians only a few centuries ago. Today the dominant view of Christianity is that it stands for the inclusion of all outcasts, particularly the non-Christian. "Jesus would never reject anyone." Jesus stands for ultimate tolerance. His vicar on earth is most Christ-like when he is welcoming non-Christian migrants into the holy city and washing their feet. His vicar on earth loves gays and transexuals, because that is what Jesus would do.
The purpose of my post is not merely to condemn this interpretation of Christianity. There seems to be scriptural support for it. Why should we passively accept Muslims, even if they aim to kill us? Well, Christ emptied himself, even unto death. He valorized Samaritans in the face of Judeans. He passively accepted crucifixion at the hands of his enemies. Why should we eschew rigid sexual regulation? Well, whether it was with the woman at the well or the woman who would be stoned, Jesus of the New Testament seemed quick to embrace sexual deviants.
The purpose of my post is to point out that this Christianity would be completely foreign to Christians a few hundred years ago, who with great sincerity understood their Christian obligation to be to drive out Muslims and to convert any Jews. They understood, with scriptural support, that they had to fiercely condemn lustful behavior and any kind of sexual union that was not between a man and a woman.
So here's my problem -- if Christianity is that plastic, if it can be bent at will by any cultural trend, and is merely a prophylactic for *other*, more powerful moral systems, than what is it worth, really? It's a veneer painted over other systems that do the real heavy lifting, whether nationalism or shitlibbery, or whatever.
And that really threatens my faith.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691452) |
Date: November 15th, 2017 9:08 AM Author: mind-boggling step-uncle's house feces
The way of Jesus has been unfortunately twisted and manipulated for a very very very long time. The RCC in particular.
The hierarchy, simony and monetary corruption that has plagued the organized Church in the past (and now all this crazy gay shit) is the Whore of Babylon
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691465) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2017 9:25 AM Author: Curious plaza main people
That's an exaggeration. But you can see this is really happening right now. The pope, when questioned about gay priests, famously said, "Who I am to judge?"
Think about that for fucking second. A pope saying "who am i to judge?"
It was a typical shitlib move, because of course the pope HAS judged and he has judged that being gay is like having green eyes, unimportant to your soul, and that the moral christian response is to be blind to such unimportant matters.
While self-styled orthodox catholics are pushing back on the pope for things like this, he is only voicing how the majority of humans (in the west) understand jesus -- as the pinnacle in acceptance and tolerance.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691546) |
Date: November 15th, 2017 9:16 AM Author: ungodly sex offender chad
I’m a pretty conservative Christian and i don’t necessary agree with this. Christianity hundreds of years ago had run amok to the point where the church was either selling salvation or forcing people to convert-neither of which would conform to the message of the Bible. The majority of churches today still agree that homosexuality is a sin. The idea that you kick out or completely reject someone for sinning runs contrary to the Bible. Most churches will not, however, allow a practicing homosexual to serve in leadership just like they would not allow an unrepentant adulterer to do so. You have to accept that you are winning before you can really come to accept what Jesus did for you on the cross. Most churches fundamentally agree on that principle.
Regarding nationalism, the church has always transcendsed national boundaries, which was why there was so much conflict between the Catholic Church and European kings in the 1300s-1700s.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691513) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2017 12:09 PM Author: Sapphire university gaming laptop
There's something to this critique, but
" There existed a Christianity where Jesus was a King and if one did not bend the knee at his name and receive the holy waters of baptism, one would very literally spend eternity in damnation."
every church I've ever been in would still affirm this as the governing principle
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34692690)
|
Date: November 15th, 2017 9:26 AM Author: aggressive sable quadroon national
"It's a veneer painted over other systems that do the real heavy lifting, whether nationalism or shitlibbery, or whatever."
This is essentially correct. It also, because it's supposed to be treated as "the word of god" it also drives EXTREME behavior.
Jesus doesn't really get an A grade on morality teaching.
Also, we don't really get a clear sense of Jesus --who he was--from the bible--at one moment he's a pacifist or a quietist, at the next moment he's calling for bloody revolution. At one moment the Kingdom of God is here right now, inside us, at the next moment, it's coming from on high in the lifetime of the people who were around when the stories were written up some 300 years after the fact. (There's a reason for this: There was no Jesus. He's a heroic character like Moses. But that might be too much for you right now.) Just think on the plasticity some more, and you'll see how toxic and false religion is.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691547) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2017 9:32 AM Author: Curious plaza main people
I cannot take your points seriously at all if you believe there was no historical Jesus.
This is a very dumb position and it is dumb because it betrays no understanding of history. It expects a modern version of a historical record.
We have about as much historical record of Jesus as we have of ANYONE who lived thousands of years ago. What the fuck do you think the new testament is? Written between c. 70 and c.110 AD, we have dozens of writings about a non-politician. Who else do we have any of that about?
Even using basic logic, Christmos were dying for Jesus by the 70s and 80s. You think that mere decades after an infernal conspiracy to invent a magic character, people (some of whom would have been eye witnesses) would die for the lie?
Or are all of those early christians invented, too?
Indisputably there was a controversial Galilean preacher named Jesus who purported to work miracles and who upset Jewish leaders and who was killed by Romans. Perhaps the rest is mythology, but dont be dumb
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691591)
|
|
Date: November 15th, 2017 9:43 AM Author: aggressive sable quadroon national
Okay. It's cool. People can disagree on that point (and vehemently do.) Let's accept the premise that as you say there was a historical jesus who was teaching, made people mad, got kilt by the Romans via crucifiction.
You are right to say Christianity can be spread across to justify any act, like Smuckers jelly. And that plasticity suggests that its not an absolute truth.
Some very smart people who wrestled with this concluded that it must be some sort of faith thing--just believe in him and thru that belief you get the bennies.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691668) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2017 9:49 AM Author: Curious plaza main people
agreed.
I dont need it to be "absolute truth". If it is, all the better, but I think that is kind of a greek idea that is in tension with the more jewish ideas central to christianity.
i do need it to be sincere, however, and not merely.... my vocabulary and IQ fail me in finding the right analogy. I have used plastic and prophylactic and veneer, and those get close to what I mean.
Anyway, I will keep thinking about it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691714) |
Date: November 15th, 2017 9:32 AM Author: naked boiling water
Blessed are Christian autists
for theirs is an autist lawbort
Blessed are Christian race realists
for they shall have niggerthreads
Blessed are petty Christian clitdicks
for they shall have likeminded clitdicks
Blessed are the meek
for they shall know scholarship (and Darnell)
Blessed are those who hunger for misogny
for they shall have low IQ fempoasters to insult
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34691592)
|
Date: November 15th, 2017 12:05 PM Author: Hairraiser insecure regret dilemma
Can provide Scripture references for all argumentation if necessary.
I) I think that this dilemma is premised on a few false assumptions:
- A) That either the older Church or today's Church got it mostly right, in some way. This isn't necessarily true.
- B) That Scripture was/is not misinterpreted to provide the basis for either of those extremes. Closely related to the prior assumption, the assumption that one of these two choices is correct is uncertain, and probably false; there is often far less Scriptural support on both sides that you've referenced than there is purported to be.
- C) That Christianity is monolithic, and thus, mainstream ideologies are representative of the Church in its entirety or its purest. This is untrue; while mainstream Christianity today has deviated radically from what was orthodox for an overwhelming majority of the history of the church, that doesn't mean that all Christians today have done so.
- D) That the majority of professing Christians are doctrinally sound, and are thus representative of true Christianity. This is by no means certain, and in fact is unlikely; it is Scriptural to believe that many will apostatize or adhere to a false faith. This, in conjunction with point C, is heavily refutative of your plasticity argument; it is possible and likely that there are sects/denominations that have it right, but they may not be mainstream.
- E) That Christians who are saved cannot have radically differing understandings of what civil government should look like, and how Christians should interact with it. Much of these differences are due to differing views on the role of civil government. Calvin provided strong justification for using civil government to enforce moral regulations, but there are plenty of Christians who disagree with his argument; this is not, I think, an error of anti-salvific magnitude.
II) In my belief, many of these objections are resolvable with careful hermeneutics; I'm going to now attempt to provided some clarification/rebuttal/explanation on the issues you mentioned in your poast.
- A) There are multiple points within your first paragraph that merit response:
-- 1) This philosophy may be exemplary of mainstream liberal theology, but there are plenty of denominations that reject this philosophy. Moreover, there is an abundance of Scripture that indicates this view is likely at least partially incorrect.
-- 2) Conflating kindness to migrants with the acceptance of homosexuals and transsexuals is incorrect. These are discrete issues.
-- 3) Kindness to migrants has a plethora of Scriptural support.
-- 4) Kindness to homosexuals and transsexuals has Scriptural support in limited measures, however, this should not be construed to include governmental endorsement or inclusion into the Church without permanent repentance from these sins.
- B) Careful interpretation of Scripture should provide you the answer to these and other issues. (I see you're Catholic, so under your tradition you would be exhorted to consult tradition and orthodoxy as well.) It is incorrect to consider these issues without careful exegesis, and it is also wrong to simply accept a denominational platform "part-and-parcel" without checking it for Scriptural validity in each area. This paragraph seems to imply a binary dichotomy between liberal theology and conservative theology, when in fact there are likely errors in both that should be held under the microscope of Scripture. It is poor Christianity to accept at face value assertions made about Scriptural support for an issue; you have a responsibility to check because you have a moral responsibility to be as correct as you can be. In answer to the two issues you mentioned in your poast:
-- 1) There are varying answers on this, primarily contingent on two Scriptural questions: what is the Church's duty to Muslims (even violent ones), and what is the role of civil government? Thus, portraying this as having equivalent Scriptural support to the Crusades is incorrect; either one certainly has more or they aren't in conflict.
-- 2) Rigid sexual regulation is much clearer than the previous issue; nowhere in Scripture are homosexual or transsexual behaviors legitimized, and they are explicitly forbidden in several instances.
- C) I'll address both of your next two paragraphs in the next two points. I've already explained the issues with viewing theological paradigms as wholly binary; there can be errors in all. These are resolved through careful hermeneutics. However, new to your argument is the argument that Christianity is merely a conduit for other more powerful moral systems. I'm curious how you arrived at that conclusion from the above premises; unless one wholly rejects propitiatory atonement in favor of a works-based salvation or an inclusive pluralism, Christianity is still a virtually self-referential moral authority. There is no reliance on other moral systems without a clear rejection of the entire salvation doctrine. This is patently unScriptural, and should be rejected out of hand.
- D) Even assuming in arguendo that one were willing to wholly reject Christianity as a conduit for some other moral system, the systems that is could act as a conduit for lack basis without it; there is no good argument for the value of man or virtue of the type prescribed by Christianity without the Christian faith. Hence either one must reject all moral systems of that type, one must find basis for them outside of Christian doctrine, or one must accept Christianity.
- E) Here, I'll address your last sentence. You should arrive at your own philosophical and Scriptural justification for your faith independently of whether it is mainstream. Read Aquinas, Augustine, Leibniz, Hegel, Pascal, and others; most importantly, read Scripture and pray. You should not be shaken in faith by the heresy or apostasy of others unless it is inherently refutative of your own justifications for faith. Study Scripture and develop your own answers to this issue, rather than placing yourself in a binary dichotomy between worldviews.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34692656)
|
|
Date: November 15th, 2017 12:18 PM Author: Curious plaza main people
*highlights poster*
I will actually print this out and read it carefully
tyvm
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34692754) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2017 1:27 PM Author: aggressive sable quadroon national
No, he's specifically asking about the legitimacy of the faith in light of its apparent plasticity.
Your response, though well meaning, is simply to suggest more plasticity (though you wont acknowledge this).
EDIT: you are doing the "true Christianity is really beyond the ken of man to grasp" which when looked at carefully is tautological and means absolutely nothing.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693321) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2017 1:39 PM Author: Dun twisted house
Humanity having been unable to grasp something so far —/—> humanity unable to grasp that thing.
I’m not religious and I don’t care to be so I can’t help OP, and I don’t know if the Bible is or is not consistent. But the original response to OP certainly is not just arguing for a “specific shape of the plasticity” like you originally stated. It’s offering OP a way to square christianity’s Plasticity with his faith, which was OP’s request.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693397) |
|
Date: November 15th, 2017 2:16 PM Author: aggressive sable quadroon national
Well wait a minute. There's Msytery because we just don't know yet but we are well on the way to answering, and there's mystery which we will never know.
In Xty, too often mysteries of the former are confused w mysteries of the latter. If mystery of the latter, I'm just being asked not to think. And lots of harms come in when you are asked not to think and you don't think.
Please elaborate: "faith explains more than a lack of faith does"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3797932&forum_id=2#34693654) |
|
|