A Chirstmas Eve Prayer for our troops..

[blueactive]

On December 8th 1944 General Patton was headquartered in Casene Molfir, in Nancy, France. Harsh rain storms hampered the progress of his columns. Patton ordered the 3rd Army Chaplain, Msgr. James H. O'Neill to compose a prayer to give the men clear weather for battle against the Germans who were just eight days away from launching an offensive from the Schnee Eiffel Forest that became known as the Battle of the Bulge. The prayer was distributed to the troops to the tune of 250,000 copies between December 12-14, 1944. By December 20th the weather cleared to the surprise of Allied meteorologists and to the horror of German ones.

This Christmas Eve I am thinking of our soldiers then and now,..and that prayer. I've modified it slightly and wonder if some of you might recite it in your prayers tonight?

Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness, to prevent any harm to our soldiers in battle. Let the sun shine in the eyes of the enemy, let the sands blow in their faces. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies, and establish Thy justice among men and nations. Amen.

Merry Christmas...

[Draft Dodger]

AMEN, and Merry Christmas

[Mr.BlueOil]

Pitty that such words are used in prayer, enemy, wickedness..

Well here's to world peace, which is seemingly less achivable by man in living flesh, but found when there is nothing at all, and all lay to rest.

Speaking of which... I wonder when the next massive war will occur... before or after resources are depleted?

Unless we realize that we are a world of the same union and each nation comes together with a single government, former coutries become provinces or states, aid given to those that need it from those that have it. Education becomes free as well with health care... we will not see the dawn of world peace, for it will not exist untill the last of us is gone.

Time to find a new hope. World peace is to frightful.

[blueactive]

Pitty that such words are used in prayer, enemy, wickedness..

Well here's to world peace, which is seemingly less achivable by man in living flesh, but found when there is nothing at all, and all lay to rest.

Speaking of which... I wonder when the next massive war will occur... before or after resources are depleted?

Unless we realize that we are a world of the same union and each nation comes together with a single government, former coutries become provinces or states, aid given to those that need it from those that have it. Education becomes free as well with health care... we will not see the dawn of world peace, for it will not exist untill the last of us is gone.


That's true. War will always be with us. So it's best to accept the reality of the world that exists and pray for the defeat of enemies who represent evil in that their only good is the oppression they offer to the world. And it is sad that this is the way things are, but never the less, it's the way things are.

[Mr.BlueOil]

That's true. War will always be with us. So it's best to accept the reality of the world that exists and pray for the defeat of enemies who represent evil in that their only good is the oppression they offer to the world. And it is sad that this is the way things are, but never the less, it's the way things are.

I don't think it's the way things have to be. We've been born in a time in which this is the way things are. It's how it's shown to us as the way to be, however it does not need to be this way. We just don't have the answer, or are too familiar with how things are now to adopt radical change. Accepting the reality of the world that exist's is easy, facing the fact that somethings need to change is to great a challenge for joe blow and his current comfortable lifestyle.

Remember that our "enemies" are people just like us, but with a different path to walk upon from birth. With alot of different turns / choices / needs then what we experiance. You could have been born in their situation, you could have been the "enemy". We already know better then to state devine right of rule, why should there be a devine right to war?

P.S. I hope I was able to keep this without seeming like an attack. Your reply made sence for the world as it is. But what about the world as it could be. That's what I'm aiming for in my thoughts.

[Churlant]

I'm sure there are many such prayers of equal content being silently or actively spoken. Of course, in many it is us who is the "enemy".

I prefer simply praying for the safe return of our troops. Praying for the slaughter of others, enemies or not, is a task best left to the true enemies of peace... not us.

-JC

[blueactive]

Remember that our "enemies" are people just like us, but with a different path to walk upon from birth. With alot of different turns / choices / needs then what we experiance. You could have been born in their situation, you could have been the "enemy". We already know better then to state devine right of rule, why should there be a devine right to war?



How can you say that our enemies are just like us? I think your hope for a future that could be clouds the reality of things as they actually are. Our enemies behead helpless civilians. Our enemies believe that you must covert to their religion or be put to the sword. Our enemies crashed three airliners loaded with men women and children into buildings. Our enemies are nothing like us beyond being human.

[Mr.BlueOil]

Very well re-said. I think it best to drop this for now. Unless you would like to start sharing ideas on how to obtain world peace, or maybe not world peace, but world union as a begining or step towards the end of war.

[blueactive]

I'm sure there are many such prayers of equal content being silently or actively spoken. Of course, in many it is us who is the "enemy".

I prefer simply praying for the safe return of our troops. Praying for the slaughter of others, enemies or not, is a task best left to the true enemies of peace... not us.


I wouldn't go that far. I just know what side I'm on. I know who I want to win. To be fair it seems to me that your should be praying for the safe return of the other side's "soldiers" as well. Being a "peace at any price" person is fine with me, but it's a mistake to assign titles like "enemies of peace" to those who disagree with you. In the 6,000 years of recorded history there has never been "peace on earth." An awful lot of people who wanted peace found themselves wiped out because they were too timid and lacking in moral clarity to accept the world as it clearly is.

[blueactive]

Very well re-said. I think it best to drop this for now. Unless you would like to start sharing ideas on how to obtain world peace, or maybe not world peace, but world union as a begining or step towards the end of war.


I think it's going to be called "The Second Coming." There is in the Universe a final Authority who's Judgement will end all wars and human strife. It is simply a matter of time.

[Churlant]

I wouldn't go that far. I just know what side I'm on. I know who I want to win. To be fair it seems to me that your should be praying for the safe return of the other side's "soldiers" as well. Being a "peace at any price" person is fine with me, but it's a mistake to assign titles like "enemies of peace" to those who disagree with you. In the 6,000 years of recorded history there has never been "peace on earth." An awful lot of people who wanted peace found themselves wiped out because they were too timid and lacking in moral clarity to accept the world as it clearly is.

Did I say I was a "peace at any price" type? Assumptions...

I only comment as I find it funny you would advocate such a harsh prayer with what seems to be zero understanding (my own assumption) of the enemy you speak of. I don't believe God is going to become involved with either side, regardless of how many prayers are sent, when the net message from those prayers is "DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!" That is what you have done below, and I don't believe praying for destruction to anyone, enemy or not, is very useful.

So no I do not pray for the safe return of the enemy's soldiers... I pray for the return of my own. Their side can pray for what they like - whether it is death or life or peace or money... I'll stick to life for now.

Oh.. and "enemies of peace" refers to the extremists who flew planes into our cities - because when you boil it down, that is what they are :) Again with those assumptions of yours...

-JC

[Mr.BlueOil]

I think it's going to be called "The Second Coming." There is in the Universe a final Authority who's Judgement will end all wars and human strife. It is simply a matter of time.

Are you speaking of a god? or maybe an alien life form? Or maybe just energy with some form of consousness?

[blueactive]

I am speaking of God, yes.

[xexon]

God does not favor the winner of this battle or that. God only judges the souls of the participants. Did you commit sin in this battle, or did you manage to escape it?

Your account with God will be adjusted accordingly.

As for our troops, the best prayer would be one to bring them home from this terrible mess we've made for ourselves.

World domination ain't as easy as it used to be.




x

[Michele]

hoo boy so it's the second coming that is to bring peace.... I thought that was the idea when he came the first time around... but of course the message didn't get through... so what is different now... particularly when it's a resounding us or them that prevails and anything more humane is considered treasonous... you know in "our" battle of "good" against "evil."

In today's climate some of the most piously righteous amongst us, who know which side upon which they stand, won't be apt to notice the second coming dare he pray for the safety of all regardless of what side and dare if he should admonish the side of those who feel righteous and praise the side of those called enemy in an effort to break the orwellian spell that has darkened the world. He will be labelled an assortment of names and if he persists with the same type parables he was noted for the first time around before too long he will be shot dead in his tracks, for not stating clear enough whether he was an us or a them.

that said.... yes bring our troops home from this terrible mess we've made for ourselves might we awaken from the dim wittedness that rallied us to arms and might we instead identify the error of our ways toward the needed equity and understanding and begin to account for the harms we have done in a consorted effort to play the conciliatory role that is needed more than the empty glory of what can never be right to come of such wrong.

[blueactive]

hoo boy so it's the second coming that is to bring peace.... I thought that was the idea when he came the first time around... but of course the message didn't get through... so what is different now... particularly when it's a resounding us or them that prevails and anything more humane is considered treasonous... you know in "our" battle of "good" against "evil."

In today's climate some of the most piously righteous amongst us, who know which side upon which they stand, won't be apt to notice the second coming dare he pray for the safety of all regardless of what side and dare if he should admonish the side of those who feel righteous and praise the side of those called enemy in an effort to break the orwellian spell that has darkened the world. He will be labelled an assortment of names and if he persists with the same type parables he was noted for the first time around before too long he will be shot dead in his tracks, for not stating clear enough whether he was an us or a them.

that said.... yes bring our troops home from this terrible mess we've made for ourselves might we awaken from the dim wittedness that rallied us to arms and might we instead identify the error of our ways toward the needed equity and understanding and begin to account for the harms we have done in a consorted effort to play the conciliatory role that is needed more than the empty glory of what can never be right to come of such wrong.


It's always amusing to me to read the strained contortions of the non-religious when they attempt to explain what the Christian faith means to Christians. :rolleyes:

[Churlant]

It's always amusing to me to read the strained contortions of the non-religious when they attempt to explain what the Christian faith means to Christians. :rolleyes:

I find it equally amusing when some Christians attempt to explain their contorted faith as well. :D

-JC

[chukster8614]

It's always amusing to me to read the strained contortions of the non-religious when they attempt to explain what the Christian faith means to Christians. :rolleyes:
There's one thing some of us do know without having to resort to contortions, and that is kneeling down and clasping your hands and mumbling to God isn't going to help the troops over in Iraq at all.

[blueactive]

God does not favor the winner of this battle or that. God only judges the souls of the participants. Did you commit sin in this battle, or did you manage to escape it?

Your account with God will be adjusted accordingly.

As for our troops, the best prayer would be one to bring them home from this terrible mess we've made for ourselves.

World domination ain't as easy as it used to be.


Sure. It used to be that you could just hoist a hammer and sicle on a red banner and march off to the cheers of the willfully blind "useful idiots" in the West. Now you have to get the approval of the UN and the NY Times first. Yeah, its pretty rough.

And your view about God not picking sides is irreligious. God makes the distinction between good and evil pretty clear. He even goes so far as to say that sins committed expressly in his name were mortal, unrepentable sins. against him. (Just to mention beheading a helpless prisoner while chanting "God is Great")

To say that God would remain perfectly neutral in a conflict between good and evil like WWII imposes on God a Post Modern Secular Humanism that is anti-religious. It's man that fails to choose between good and evil, not God.

[chukster8614]

[QUOTE=blueactive]Sure. It used to be that you could just hoist a hammer and sicle on a red banner and march off to the cheers of the willfully blind "useful idiots" in the West. Now you have to get the approval of the UN and the NY Times first. Yeah, its pretty rough.
[QUOTE]
At least we're sure the UN and the NY Times exist.

[chukster8614]

PS: And I find it incredible how a pacifist like Jesus could inspire so many of his "followers" to support violent crusades.

[blueactive]

There's one thing some of us do know without having to resort to contortions, and that is kneeling down and clasping your hands and mumbling to God isn't going to help the troops over in Iraq at all.


You and Churlant should write a book together....

[blueactive]

PS: And I find it incredible how a pacifist like Jesus could inspire so many of his "followers" to support violent crusades.


To say that God would remain perfectly neutral in a conflict between good and evil like WWII imposes on God a Post Modern Secular Humanism that is anti-religious. It's man that fails to choose between good and evil, not God.

[Churlant]

To say that God would remain perfectly neutral in a conflict between good and evil like WWII imposes on God a Post Modern Secular Humanism that is anti-religious. It's man that fails to choose between good and evil, not God.

You just can't get it, can you? YOU believe God is on your side - and that side is Good. THEY believe the exact samn damn thing - God is on THEIR side and it is THAT side which holds the mantle of righteousness. You can walk around all day long talking about WWII and Good and Evil and how God isn't neutral... and you will never understand it is your own perspective that feeds this opinion. The fact that I happen to agree with you - that is I also believe we are generally Right, give or take a sin or two - doesn't stop me from grasping the very simple concept of perspective.

In any event, God may choose sides, but He will do so as He chooses. Our own spiritual health, and for the sake of our own supposed Righteousness, demands we not actually pray for someone's destruction. It is self-defeating and ultimately futile. Praying for life is the only true Christian backdrop... everything else is either based on vengeance, hatred, or ignorance - and none of these need be directed toward God.

-JC

[blueactive]

PS: And I find it incredible how a pacifist like Jesus could inspire so many of his "followers" to support violent crusades.


I find it incredible that you could imagine that a man who is willing to die violently in support of his beliefs as Christ did can be called a "pacifist." The entire idea of pacifism is that nothing is worthy violence.

[blueactive]

You just can't get it, can you? YOU believe God is on your side - and that side is Good. THEY believe the exact samn damn thing - God is on THEIR side and it is THAT side which holds the mantle of righteousness. You can walk around all day long talking about WWII and Good and Evil and how God isn't neutral... and you will never understand it is your own perspective that feeds this opinion. The fact that I happen to agree with you - that is I also believe we are generally Right, give or take a sin or two - doesn't stop me from grasping the very simple concept of perspective.


I get it fine. I just reject the nonsense that just because the terrorists believe they are doing right, it's somehow equal to actually being right. Your view makes it impossible to make a moral judgement about what is right and wrong. Reduced to its logical implications we should have some kind of respect for the Nazis because they believed they were doing right. And of course it's my own perspective feeding the idea that liberal democracy is morally right against Nazi Facism. My perspective also happens to be the correct one.



In any event, God may choose sides, but He will do so as He chooses. Our own spiritual health, and for the sake of our own supposed Righteousness, demands we not actually pray for someone's destruction. It is self-defeating and ultimately futile. Praying for life is the only true Christian backdrop... everything else is either based on vengeance, hatred, or ignorance - and none of these need be directed toward God.


God in his wisdom I think understands that the terrorists cannot be loved, understood or persuaded out of their murderous cult of death and oppression. They mean to do great harm to those who will not willingly join them in heresy and death. It is the absolute duty of Christians to resist, fight and seek to end the blasphemy against God that Islamic radicalism represents.

And that prayer called for our troops to advance from victory to victory, to crush the wickedness and oppression of our enemies. There is no direct call for the destruction of others, just the traits that make them the enemies of Christianity and God.

[Captain America]

I know this, if Iraqi's were walking our streets and occuping my neighborhood.....

well, lemme just say this....you ain't even MET terrorism yet.

Nobody is right when everybody is wrong. God, schmod...... If god was real, he'd tell them all to go to hell. Any god that would "bless" these actions, on either side, is a god I'd want nothing to do with.

Hitler was SURE god was on his side. What does that tell ya?

[blueactive]

I know this, if Iraqi's were walking our streets and occuping my neighborhood.....

well, lemme just say this....you ain't even MET terrorism yet.

Nobody is right when everybody is wrong. God, schmod...... If god was real, he'd tell them all to go to hell. Any god that would "bless" these actions, on either side, is a god I'd want nothing to do with.

Hitler was SURE god was on his side. What does that tell ya?


It tells me that one may only skim the surface of a thing to form concrete unshakable nonsense that nobody could ever talk you out of. :lol:

And I hope that Iraqis are not ever found walking in our neighborhoods in "occupation." It would be a shame to see you blowing up your neighbors, using churches for bomb factories, killing our own women and children indiscriminately.


And if God was "real" as you say. Has it occurred to you that he might not want your company either? :D

[Churlant]

I get it fine. I just reject the nonsense that just because the terrorists believe they are doing right, it's somehow equal to actually being right. Your view makes it impossible to make a moral judgement about what is right and wrong. Reduced to its logical implications we should have some kind of respect for the Nazis because they believed they were doing right. And of course it's my own perspective feeding the idea that liberal democracy is morally right against Nazi Facism. My perspective also happens to be the correct one.


Problem is you only have your faith in being Right. The other side believes it is Good and Just just as much, if not more, than you do. I know it's comforting to believe in moral absolutes... except you still don't see that those absolutes are dictated by your faith. Once again, claiming you are Right and KNOWING you are right are two very different, subjective realms. I know you will never understand or believe this, but you are not the person who gets to make that judgement. God IS qualified, however, and that you insist He would agree with you is only the arrogance of dogma talking.

As Cap said... Hitler knew God was on his side. Bin Laden knows God is on his side. You know God is on your side. We all think we are correct based on the same answer: faith. Good and Evil? Again... your faith in our Goodness vs their Evil. You can call it nonsense, but then again, that is the hidden motto of most religions.


God in his wisdom I think understands that the terrorists cannot be loved, understood or persuaded out of their murderous cult of death and oppression. They mean to do great harm to those who will not willingly join them in heresy and death. It is the absolute duty of Christians to resist, fight and seek to end the blasphemy against God that Islamic radicalism represents.


God loves all of us :) The rest of this is just lack of understanding or generalization...



And that prayer called for our troops to advance from victory to victory, to crush the wickedness and oppression of our enemies. There is no direct call for the destruction of others, just the traits that make them the enemies of Christianity and God.


Call it what you will - "crushing" people kills guilty and innocent alike. If you actually believe Jesus Christ ever, or would ever, pray for the death of another individual... :shrug: can't help you. Equating his sacrifice with anti-pacifism, however, is a bit of a stretch.

-JC

[Captain America]

Talking to some people is like pissing up a rope. I am just thankful I only have to deal with their type online.

[blueactive]

Talking to some people is like pissing up a rope. I am just thankful I only have to deal with their type online.


And I'm grateful that I will not be stuck with some for all eternity. :lol: We both get what we want.

[Redratio1]

Ah!

The age old custom of envoking one's God against the other side. While at the same time the other side is doing the same thing.

Merry Xmas indeed.

[Churlant]

Ah!

The age old custom of envoking one's God against the other side. While at the same time the other side is doing the same thing.

Merry Xmas indeed.

Yeah, but the other guy's god isn't real... notice how I didn't capitalize the 'g', thus making it so! :D

-JC

Post Script: Your feeble ST:TNG mockings have no power over me, Red! Besides, invoking Sci-fi in a religion discussion is heresy...

[Redratio1]

Yeah, but the other guy's god isn't real... notice how I didn't capitalize the 'g', thus making it so! :D

-JC

Make it so number 1!

[Mr.BlueOil]

Sure. It used to be that you could just hoist a hammer and sicle on a red banner and march off to the cheers of the willfully blind "useful idiots" in the West. Now you have to get the approval of the UN and the NY Times first. Yeah, its pretty rough.

There are still ways around the UN, and I think it's stars and stripes leading the march now adays.


And your view about God not picking sides is irreligious. God makes the distinction between good and evil pretty clear. He even goes so far as to say that sins committed expressly in his name were mortal, unrepentable sins. against him. (Just to mention beheading a helpless prisoner while chanting "God is Great")


This entire paragraph makes me feel sorry for you. God (if exist's) needs not to make the distinction between good and evil because when it comes down to it the mind of the individual make the deciding choice. And by experiance of life and knowledge of the world around them blind or not will affect their ability to reason right from wrong. But not to be compared with those in the west, for those in the west suffer the same lack of knowledge. If you really want to make a differance in concerns with the war and society over in the east, then grab some books and go to that country and teach. But leave your ritious religious garbage at home. If you want to reach people over there you'll need to learn how their civilization grows and how it's come to be as it is. Then inspire thought to make it better for them, so that ultimately they decide to do the right thing. I think those people are sick and tired of having the religious and social rules of other countires and people pressed upon them.



To say that God would remain perfectly neutral in a conflict between good and evil like WWII imposes on God a Post Modern Secular Humanism that is anti-religious. It's man that fails to choose between good and evil, not God.

Your reliance on god existing is overwhelming. Lemmie get this straight... god plans everything, so these people are being born over there are all the devils children? Or could it be that they are simply humans born the same as over here, but from the time of their birth till death they are raised differently. Beliefs are different, food, quality of life, media, education, etc, etc, etc. The point I want to most strongly get accross to you is that If you were born in the situation of your enemy (no matter who they may be)then besides a few facial expressions and maybe blood type, you would be the same person. With the west looking at you as evil, as the enemy, because all you do is hate. Or atleast that's all the "controled" media shows you. Your position on this matter makes my stomache hurt, not that you care, because now I'm probably the enemy too.

[blueactive]

Problem is you only have your faith in being Right. The other side believes it is Good and Just just as much, if not more, than you do. I know it's comforting to believe in moral absolutes... except you still don't see that those absolutes are dictated by your faith. Once again, claiming you are Right and KNOWING you are right are two very different, subjective realms. I know you will never understand or believe this, but you are not the person who gets to make that judgement. God IS qualified, however, and that you insist He would agree with you is only the arrogance of dogma talking.


O.K., So please find me the kind of moral relativism that you make dogma, coming out of the mouth of Christ. Your position on the interchangability between right and wrong is co-commitant to the same interchangability between good and evil. Neither is either. Your view is the complete rejection of the Christian principle; that God places us on this earth and asks us to choose between good and evil in our conduct, between the truth and lies in our philosophy, between everlasting life and complete death in our future.


As Cap said... Hitler knew God was on his side. Bin Laden knows God is on his side. You know God is on your side. We all think we are correct based on the same answer: faith. Good and Evil? Again... your faith in our Goodness vs their Evil. You can call it nonsense, but then again, that is the hidden motto of most religions.

Not faith, the truth. It is a truth that you deny even exists beyond our own narrow perspective. So the guy who beheads women and children is equally right against the person who thinks such things are barbaric crimes. Everything is relative to perspective. Nothing is more true, more right or more moral than anything to its exact opposite. When you you think Hitler figured out he was wrong, that God was not on his side? As he was putting the gun to his own head maybe? When do you think Osama will figure things out in his cave hunted like an animal. Do you think he might be wondering why the infidels haven't been driven before him with the help of God?

Watch this.....You are right and I am wrong. I just conceded your point and disproved it at the same time. Neither of us can be right or wrong by your argument so conceding that you are right proves that you are wrong. :lol:



God loves all of us :) The rest of this is just lack of understanding or generalization....

Sure he does, but do you think that means he makes no moral judgements about our actions? About the way we choose to live our lives? That you could be a child molester unrepentent and go to heaven with a big "Welcome Home" sign hung out for you? PA-LEASE. Go read a Bible.





Call it what you will - "crushing" people kills guilty and innocent alike. If you actually believe Jesus Christ ever, or would ever, pray for the death of another individual... :shrug: can't help you. Equating his sacrifice with anti-pacifism, however, is a bit of a stretch.

-JC

Sheesh...I don't care how you want to make it sound. I wrote it the way I meant it and offered you the context. I clearly, and in plain common English said that God should aid us in crushing the wickedness and oppression of our enemies. As in,.. crushing their wickedness and oppression.

And Pacifists renounce the idea that anything is worth defending violently. Christ being killed violently by refusing to renounce his ideals removes him from the ranks of pacifists, who by their own beliefs would not insist that their ideas are worth dying a violent death for in the first place. And when Christ entered the Temple In the New Testament we are told that Christ used the scourge on the money-changers (John, ii, 15) A scourrge is kind of knotted whip. Pacifist did you say?

[blueactive]

Ah!

The age old custom of envoking one's God against the other side. While at the same time the other side is doing the same thing.

Merry Xmas indeed.

It must be wa-aay cooler to be a Secular Humanist. That way both sides are wrong, there is no God and nothing can be called right or wrong, good or evil.

[Churlant]

O.K., So please find me the kind of moral relativism that you make dogma, coming out of the mouth of Christ. Your position on the interchangability between right and wrong is co-commitant to the same interchangability between good and evil. Neither is either. Your view is the complete rejection of the Christian principle; that God places us on this earth and asks us to choose between good and evil in our conduct, between the truth and lies in our philosophy, between everlasting life and complete death in our future.


Well would you do us all a favor and define "Good" and "Evil" ? Don't forget to mention any exceptions to each definition please. Again, I am not laying down the relativity involved here as my "view"... as I've said countless times, I consider us to be the Good Guys - I am only attempting to get you to understand that your position in asking God to smite our enemies is a mirror of those enemies' own actions. And just because you think you are on the side of Truth doesn't make it any more so than when THEY believe they are on the side of Truth.


Not faith, the truth. It is a truth that you deny even exists beyond our own narrow perspective. So the guy who beheads women and children is equally right against the person who thinks such things are barbaric crimes. Everything is relative to perspective. Nothing is more true, more right or more moral than anything to its exact opposite. When you you think Hitler figured out he was wrong, that God was not on his side? As he was putting the gun to his own head maybe? When do you think Osama will figure things out in his cave hunted like an animal. Do you think he might be wondering why the infidels haven't been driven before him with the help of God?


There is more than one type of terrorist.. you have guys who behead innocents, then you have those who attack only military targets, and at the same time you have people who watch their families and friends brutally murdered by foreign powers and they believe their only recourse is killing themselves with civilians in order to get attention. You can't boil down all of the evils in the world to a guy with a knife whose only motive is greed any more than I can call all Christians fundamentalist zealots.


Watch this.....You are right and I am wrong. I just conceded your point and disproved it at the same time. Neither of us can be right or wrong by your argument so conceding that you are right proves that you are wrong. :lol:


Once more - I just want you to wake up to the fact that your enemy believes the same way you do, in exactly the same terms, and with exactly the same perspectives. It is those who are truly Evil who should be looking for God to destroy others... the rest of us should be praying for life, not death.


Sure he does, but do you think that means he makes no moral judgements about our actions? About the way we choose to live our lives? That you could be a child molester unrepentent and go to heaven with a big "Welcome Home" sign hung out for you? PA-LEASE. Go read a Bible.


What? Did we just step into middle-school? Or is that Middle-Christian-School? Get over yourself. I've decided to read much more than just the Bible - maybe you should follow that lead.



Sheesh...I don't care how you want to make it sound. I wrote it the way I meant it and offered you the context. I clearly, and in plain common English said that God should aid us in crushing the wickedness and oppression of our enemies. As in,.. crushing their wickedness and oppression.

Again - you're just window-dressing. The net of your prayer is the same regardless of how you try to re-phrase it. The end result is our difference of opinion... you believe it's not only justified, but required, to pray for the destruction of your enemies. I believe we do ourselves no favors with this mentality and our prayers should be for life and peace.

-JC

[Redratio1]

Both sides are wrong? How about both sides just are.

I wonder how God feels about envoking her name for killing in petty human sqwabbles. I'm sure she loves it.

[Mr.BlueOil]

Well if she or he has a problem with it let them come down and settle the score. Bare knuckle fight, 1000 rounds for each religion, faith, state of mind... I guess that means everyone's going to get a turn.

[blueactive]

Well would you do us all a favor and define "Good" and "Evil" ? Don't forget to mention any exceptions to each definition please. Again, I am not laying down the relativity involved here as my "view"... as I've said countless times, I consider us to be the Good Guys - I am only attempting to get you to understand that your position in asking God to smite our enemies is a mirror of those enemies' own actions. And just because you think you are on the side of Truth doesn't make it any more so than when THEY believe they are on the side of Truth.


Since God has not made the world primarily for man's good, but for His own pleasure; good for man lies in conforming himself to the supreme purpose of creation, and evil in departing from it. And my prayer asked that God assist us in crushing the evil 'wickedness' and 'oppression' of our enemies. Our enemies by contrast pray for the personal, physical destruction of each of us and our country. They do not believe that our actions are evil, they believe that our physical existence is evil. It's a distinction you miss. That is why no matter what they think about their actions, they are wrong.



There is more than one type of terrorist.. you have guys who behead innocents, then you have those who attack only military targets, and at the same time you have people who watch their families and friends brutally murdered by foreign powers and they believe their only recourse is killing themselves with civilians in order to get attention. You can't boil down all of the evils in the world to a guy with a knife whose only motive is greed any more than I can call all Christians fundamentalist zealots..

Terrorism itself is and evil. It seeks to do violence for the single purpose of invoking a reaction of fear and terror in the living. When we execute a murderer it's done behind closed doors. The execution is the punishment of the convicted. When terrorists behead a helpless civilian and send out their 'press releases' on video the victim is incidental. The intention is to terrorize the living who see the murder of an innocent. There is an evil to such violence the cannot be compared to accidentally killing civilians that terrorists use as human shields.



Once more - I just want you to wake up to the fact that your enemy believes the same way you do, in exactly the same terms, and with exactly the same perspectives.

Now this is completely wrong and reveals a startling lack of perspective on your part. There is a HUGE difference between the terrorist who sets off a road side bomb killing 50 bystanders and the soldier who wants to kill the terrorist to prevent this evil act from taking place. There is no similarity between the American soldier in Iraq trying to ensure a peaceful democracy and the terrorists trying to plunge the country into anarchy.








Again - you're just window-dressing. The net of your prayer is the same regardless of how you try to re-phrase it. The end result is our difference of opinion... you believe it's not only justified, but required, to pray for the destruction of your enemies. I believe we do ourselves no favors with this mentality and our prayers should be for life and peace.


You've created an intepretation that suits your argument. It says what it says in plain english. It calls for God to aid us in crushing the wickedness and oppression of our enemies. A rational, thinking person will read that as it is written. Please note that I didn't say "crush our enemies." I am talking about crushing the traits which make them our enemies in the first place. Again, you may believe whatever you want, but I wrote it exactly the way I meant it. I'm afraid the misinterpretation is entirely your problem.

[chukster8614]

I find it incredible that you could imagine that a man who is willing to die violently in support of his beliefs as Christ did can be called a "pacifist." The entire idea of pacifism is that nothing is worthy violence.
I guess I was under the impression that the basic tenet of Christianity was turning the other cheek for the sake of the humankind.

The assertion that we are waging a war on Evil reminds me of Lt. Gen. William Boykin who calls himself a devout Christian and who happens to think that Muslims worship a false idol. It's frightening to imagine that someone who thinks God put Bush in the White House is a prominent military official who is calling a lot of the shots in the war on terror. That's all we need: religious fanatics on both sides of this conflict.

The next four years are going to be frightening indeed.

"If Jesus were alive today, I doubt he would be a Christian." -- Mark Twain

[Redratio1]

That's all we need: religious fanatics on both sides of this conflict.


And thats what we got. :/

[blueactive]

I guess I was under the impression that the basic tenet of Christianity was turning the other cheek for the sake of the humankind.

Well, impressions of Christianity can be wrong by secularists who choose to dally in it for political purposes. Christ was talking about enduring insults not rolling over and permitting themselves to be killed. Jesus' complete statement is "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Of course, any striking is a painful blow, but the striking in this case is meant as a gross insult (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:20). If a right-handed person strikes someone's right cheek, presumably it is a slap by the back of the hand. A fist striking you would be on the left cheek. So this teaching by Jesus is not about self-defense, but about an attack on your dignity. There is God-ordained authority to keep evil from harming them or others (Proverbs 28:8; Acts 16:37-39; 22:23-29)




The assertion that we are waging a war on Evil reminds me of Lt. Gen. William Boykin who calls himself a devout Christian and who happens to think that Muslims worship a false idol. It's frightening to imagine that someone who thinks God put Bush in the White House is a prominent military official who is calling a lot of the shots in the war on terror. That's all we need: religious fanatics on both sides of this conflict.


He was describing a terrorist he was fighting in Somalia;

"I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

Why shouldn't Boykin believe that a man who murders innocents and uses religion to justify his slaughter worships a false god?

[Redratio1]

Why shouldn't Boykin believe that a man who murders innocents and uses religion to justify his slaughter worships a false god?

Because it is the same God, but with a partially different book and a new prophet to back it up. Additionally they represent a radical fringe of a major religion, and are not representative of the whole, as this general implies. The idolatry people worry about is in the brain. What matters are your actions on this planet. Not some imaginary friend in the sky.

[blueactive]

Because it is the same God, but with a partially different book and a new prophet to back it up. Additionally they represent a radical fringe of a major religion, and are not representative of the whole, as this general implies. The idolatry people worry about is in the brain. What matters are your actions on this planet. Not some imaginary friend in the sky.


His statement does not say that at all. He did not say "the muslim god is a false idol." He said in plain english; "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." He clearly is talking about that terrorist's personal understanding of God. Don't let your own bias keep you from reading english as it's clearly written.

[Strel]

It must be wa-aay cooler to be a Secular Humanist. That way both sides are wrong, there is no God and nothing can be called right or wrong, good or evil.


It is definitely cooler. Naturally you got the definition wrong, but the sentiment is correct.

[Redratio1]

His statement does not say that at all. He did not say "the muslim god is a false idol." He said in plain english; "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." He clearly is talking about that terrorist's personal understanding of God. Don't let your own bias keep you from reading english as it's clearly written.

Their God is Allah, what is the distiction? Oh yeah, in the mind. He clearly finds Allah to be idolatry, as most fundamentalists of any faith believe the unbeliever's Gods are. Thinking othewise is just more self delusion.

[blueactive]

It is definitely cooler. Naturally you got the definition wrong, but the sentiment is correct.

Naturally, but then defining the incomprehensible was never my strong suit :D

[Strel]

Naturally, but then defining the incomprehensible was never my strong suit :D

Not everyone is good at comprehending the complex. These people naturally gravitate toward a simpler, though inaccurate, view of the world.

[Redratio1]

Not everyone is good at comprehending the complex. These people naturally gravitate toward a simpler, though inaccurate, view of the world.

oh man, :lol:

[blueactive]

Not everyone is good at comprehending the complex. These people naturally gravitate toward a simpler, though inaccurate, view of the world.


Certainly, only people like you are able to comprehend the subtle nuances of human existence and the intricate workings of the universe. The 'stoopid' people like me are so fortunate to have you out there explaining the complexity of things to us.... :lol:

There's this word..(sharp pain in brain from trying to concentrate) .I'm not sure how to spell it,(reaching for dictionary in large crayon print for common morons)...Ah, here it is.(typing with knuckles)

E L I T I S T (ever been called this?)

:lol:

[Churlant]

Certainly, only people like you are able to comprehend the subtle nuances of human existence and the intricate workings of the universe. The 'stoopid' people like me are so fortunate to have you out there explaining the complexity of things to us.... :lol:

There's this word..(sharp pain in brain from trying to concentrate) .I'm not sure how to spell it,(reaching for dictionary in large crayon print for common morons)...Ah, here it is.(typing with knuckles)

E L I T I S T (ever been called this?)

:lol:

I'm confused... if Strel is an "elitist" for having the opinion that religion tends to offer simple, though incorrect, answers to complex questions - an opinion which also happens to be correct and can be proven with simple examples from history - then what do you suppose we should call you?

W R O N G

?


-JC

[Redratio1]

E L I T I S T (ever been called this?)


That would be a personal attack if it wasn't a euphemism for intellegent.

[Strel]

I'll just let that response stand as it speaks for itself.

[Strel]

Oh what the hell. Why not.

Certainly, only people like you are able to comprehend the subtle nuances of human existence and the intricate workings of the universe.

Actually anyone of reasonable intelligence can. Many choose not to for reasons I strive to understand, and instead subsitute superstition instead of understanding (especially when understanding would threaten their brainwashing, hence Creationists).

The 'stoopid' people like me are so fortunate to have you out there explaining the complexity of things to us.... :lol:

If you only knew.

There's this word..(sharp pain in brain from trying to concentrate) .I'm not sure how to spell it,(reaching for dictionary in large crayon print for common morons)...Ah, here it is.(typing with knuckles)

E L I T I S T (ever been called this?)

:lol:

You should see a doctor about that pain, apparently the faith healers aren't working out for you.

[Mr Pariah]

Actually anyone of reasonable intelligence can. Many choose not to for reasons I strive to understand, and instead subsitute superstition instead of understanding (especially when understanding would threaten their brainwashing, hence Creationists). Here we go again. Simply because somebody does not agree with your pseudo-scientific theories for the origin of life, you label them 'superstitious'. I'm not religious at all but yet I believe in intelligent design. Do you intend to stereotype me or just ignore my posts?

The reality is, most self-proclaimed 'elistists' are delusional egomaniacs. Ego is not a reflection of intelligence.

[Strel]

Here we go again. Simply because somebody does not agree with your pseudo-scientific theories for the origin of life, you label them 'superstitious'. I'm not religious at all but yet I believe in intelligent design. Do you intend to stereotype me or just ignore my posts?

The reality is, most self-proclaimed 'elistists' are delusional egomaniacs. Ego is not a reflection of intelligence.

Once again I must point out that evolutionary theory doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life. That's abiogenesis. Also, it's science, not pseudo-science. Some of us know the difference.

Intelligent design, while not as wacky as Creationism, lacks falsifiable hypotheses and ergo, IS pseudo-science. That's just how it is. You can count this as my opinion, or you can study the issue and find it out later for yourself. At any rate my post was not directed at you specfically, so relax.

Ego? Try frustration with people that will do anything to avoid having their brainwashing disturbed. They have a significant psychologic investment in their brainwashing. I pity these people and am frustrated by them, because the willfully ignorant are just so damn annoying. I see them striving to shape the government, the education system, the legal system and society as a whole to fit their individual psychologic needs at the expense of the truth and the liberty of others. Excuse me if I am huffy about that.

If you want to call that ego, that's your prerogative. From my point of view I am just one of the "elite" that is too sick and tired of the ignorance and bigotry displayed by some people that I no longer go through the trouble of being diplomatic or polite about it.

[Churlant]

Here we go again. Simply because somebody does not agree with your pseudo-scientific theories for the origin of life, you label them 'superstitious'. I'm not religious at all but yet I believe in intelligent design. Do you intend to stereotype me or just ignore my posts?


Without proof, or even evidence of some kind, all you have to show "intelligent design" is a lack of understanding for the true nature of life. This is striving for the easiest answer available to questions none of us can yet answer.

There is a question of degree when it comes to creationism, however. One could believe, as I do, that the Universe began in much the way the Big Bang theory describes - yet the origin of that material is a Creator. From that point, further interference was unnecessary as life, the universe, and everything would evolve on its own.

THEN you have people who think everything popped into existence a few thousand years ago or so. The first people lived for hundreds of years and we'd be happier if the first woman hadn't eaten an apple (which we partially blame on a snake).

Take your pick ;)

-JC

[blueactive]

Their God is Allah, what is the distiction? Oh yeah, in the mind. He clearly finds Allah to be idolatry, as most fundamentalists of any faith believe the unbeliever's Gods are. Thinking othewise is just more self delusion.


No, I think you have preconceptions about things that you will not permit facts to intrude on. You want the General to mean all muslims, therefore he does mean all muslims. What he said doesn't really matter, you're not all that interested in the facts of the situation.

[Redratio1]

Yeah, like one Allah is different than another. :rolleyes:

[blueactive]

Yeah, like one Allah is different than another. :rolleyes:

O.K. So if I say that the Grand Wizard in charge of the Klu Klux Klan worships a false idol in his God, am I saying this about ALL Christians or just the Grand Wizard?

[Churlant]

O.K. So if I say that the Grand Wizard in charge of the Klu Klux Klan worships a false idol in his God, am I saying this about ALL Christians or just the Grand Wizard?

There is what you say, and there is what you mean. You might even refer to a single individual, however as a Christian you do would naturally consider every God other than yours to be a false idol.

I know reading between the lines is only valid when it works in your favor, but some of us can do it on a regular basis. Whether the General meant his statement to blanket all muslims or not is beside the point; it is obvious he believes Allah to be a false god.

-JC

[ukangel]

Intelligent design, while not as wacky as Creationism, lacks falsifiable hypotheses and ergo, IS pseudo-science. That's just how it is. You can count this as my opinion, or you can study the issue and find it out later for yourself. At any rate my post was not directed at you specfically, so relax.

As a Christian who is not a creationist I believe in intelligent design. I dont know if you are familiar with ideas around zero point field which has emerged as a discipline around the latest studies in quantum mechanics and has proceeded to cat doubt on the Darwinian model.

[Mr Pariah]

Once again I must point out that evolutionary theory doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life. That's abiogenesis. Also, it's science, not pseudo-science. Some of us know the difference. When did I mention the evolutionary theory?

From your comments I assumed you were an atheist and therefore, rejected intelligent design. Abiogenesis is an example of pseudo-science considering the massive flaws in the hypothesis. Improbability within the realms of impossibility is only one of them.

However, I apologize for directing an unprovoked attack against you. It was not my place to launch such a rebuke.

[Mr Pariah]

Remember that our "enemies" are people just like us, but with a different path to walk upon from birth. With alot of different turns / choices / needs then what we experiance. You could have been born in their situation, you could have been the "enemy". We already know better then to state devine right of rule, why should there be a devine right to war? I agree.

[Strel]

When did I mention the evolutionary theory?

When did I mention abiogenesis?

From your comments I assumed you were an atheist and therefore, rejected intelligent design. Abiogenesis is an example of pseudo-science considering the massive flaws in the hypothesis. Improbability within the realms of impossibility is only one of them.

First, I am not an atheist - because the non-existence of God cannot be proven. I see little evidence of a God, so I can only honestly be called an agnostic. I would very much like for their to be a God, but that is a question so important that it is foolish to take anything on faith. To paraphrase Neitzsche, a casual stroll through an insane asylum will show you how effective faith is.

Abiogenesis merely refers to life originating from non-life. It is a field of study that is very difficult and fraught with questions, but is not "psuedo-science", unless you define it as every area of science that does not have well developed and established theories. Abiogenesis DOES include falsifiable hypotheses, i.e., experiments that have shown that inorganic molecules can form into organic molecules under the right conditions. You are dead wrong about the probability argument, BTW, but we can devote another thread to that. If you wan't me to catalog the problems with ID, I can do that too.

The fact is, there is even LESS evidence to support intelligent design (mainly because it relies on several bootstrap assumptions that are neither testable nor falsifiable). Abiogenesis is quite sketchy, but we do know that the necessary materials were available and that it is at least possible - again, we can have the probability argument if you like - for self-replicating organic molecules to be spontaneously produced from inorganic substances. What we do NOT know is whether this is actually how it happened, or whether it happened at all. Scientists studying abiogenesis have been quite honest about this, only to have their words twisted and misrepresented by the Creationists and ID crowd.

However, I apologize for directing an unprovoked attack against you. It was not my place to launch such a rebuke.

No apology necessary. I occasionally hit other people by accident while swinging my battleaxe at nearby Creationists.

[Strel]

As a Christian who is not a creationist I believe in intelligent design. I dont know if you are familiar with ideas around zero point field which has emerged as a discipline around the latest studies in quantum mechanics and has proceeded to cat doubt on the Darwinian model.


Casting doubt is one thing, coming up with a hypothesis that can be tested in the laboratory (which evolutionary scientists do on a daily basis) is another thing altogether. So far I have heard a lot of speculating, but where are the results of the experiments or observations that support ID? Some of the speculations do seem to make a lot of sense, but more than that is needed to call it science.

That's my beef with ID, and it is no small one, but under no circumstances would I lump this idea with "mainline" Creationism. Unfortunately for the IS camp, the words "intelligent design" are be appropriated and co-opted by Creationists recently.

[blueactive]

There is what you say, and there is what you mean. You might even refer to a single individual, however as a Christian you do would naturally consider every God other than yours to be a false idol.

I know reading between the lines is only valid when it works in your favor, but some of us can do it on a regular basis. Whether the General meant his statement to blanket all muslims or not is beside the point; it is obvious he believes Allah to be a false god.

-JC

You avoided answering the simple direct question I asked. The General was talking about a specific person, Mohamed Aidide, not all muslims. The subject was not all muslims, it was Aidide. Like I said, you have a vested interest in the General uttering a slur against all muslims so as far as you are concerned, that's what he did. My question trapped you in your own contradiction you you avoided it. When I say that the head of the Klu Klux Klan worships an idol in his false God, it has a context that specifically excludes other Christians from the same claim. The General did the same thing when he made the subject the individual "he" that was referred to. Making that specific reference to "he" mean instead "all" turns English meaning on its head for your narrow political views on the guy.

[Churlant]

You avoided answering the simple direct question I asked. The General was talking about a specific person, Mohamed Aidide, not all muslims. The subject was not all muslims, it was Aidide. Like I said, you have a vested interest in the General uttering a slur against all muslims so as far as you are concerned, that's what he did. My question trapped you in your own contradiction you you avoided it. When I say that the head of the Klu Klux Klan worships an idol in his false God, it has a context that specifically excludes other Christians from the same claim. The General did the same thing when he made the subject the individual "he" that was referred to. Making that specific reference to "he" mean instead "all" turns English meaning on its head for your narrow political views on the guy.

Your question was what avoided the point here, not my answer. Just because you prefer to view everything you see and hear in the most literal sense doesn't mean everyone else follows along. Just as you accuse me of interpreting what he says according to my own bias, YOU are ignoring his underlying mentality due to your own bias. SO... we're both biased? Say it ain't so. :rolleyes:

The General may or may not have been referring solely to one individual.. I happen to believe he was doing both - that is he gave the name of a specific person as an example of a group of people.

You also do not have access to the high horse here. You attach your own interpretation of people's words as much as anyone else, and acting as if you don't give information you hear from those you disagree with your own spin is self-contradicting.

Another note to consider is I don't really care about the General or what he said to who. He can say what he likes... I am simply pointing out that as a fundamentalist, he would believe ANYONE else's god to be a false idol. Whether he references one person or a thousand, his comments apply to anyone who isn't a Christian. This has nothing to do with a "vest interest", it is simply a fact of your doctrine.

-JC

[Redratio1]

Good posts Churlant.

[blueactive]

Your question was what avoided the point here, not my answer. Just because you prefer to view everything you see and hear in the most literal sense doesn't mean everyone else follows along. Just as you accuse me of interpreting what he says according to my own bias, YOU are ignoring his underlying mentality due to your own bias. SO... we're both biased? Say it ain't so.


O.K. it ain't so. Your interpretation is the exact opposite of its plain understanding in common english. He says "He" and that means "all muslims" to you. So what if he said "all muslims worship a false idol" You would then say that he must have been talking about a specific muslim and not all. :rolleyes: I am ignoring his underlying mentality because his statements don't suggest one unless you accept your claim that the meaning of what he says the exact opposite of the meaning of the words.


The General may or may not have been referring solely to one individual.. I happen to believe he was doing both - that is he gave the name of a specific person as an example of a group of people.

O.K. Based on what? I mean besides your own preconcieved ideas about the guy being a bigot. What proof exists that what he said is not what he means?


You also do not have access to the high horse here. You attach your own interpretation of people's words as much as anyone else, and acting as if you don't give information you hear from those you disagree with your own spin is self-contradicting..

Huh? If you say "I see a cat" I'm pretty limited in how its interpreted. To be like you I would have to extrapolate from that statement that you hate all cats and want them dead; otherwise why would you be looking for them?


Another note to consider is I don't really care about the General or what he said to who. He can say what he likes... I am simply pointing out that as a fundamentalist, he would believe ANYONE else's god to be a false idol. Whether he references one person or a thousand, his comments apply to anyone who isn't a Christian. This has nothing to do with a "vest interest", it is simply a fact of your doctrine.

-JC

Aha!!! Now it all makes sense

" I am simply pointing out that as a fundamentalist, he would believe ANYONE else's god to be a false idol."

And exactly which long established policy of fundamentalists would you like to cite to cement this astonishing statement of religious bigotry?

It certainly can't be this; Jim Winkler, General Secretary of the United Methodist Church’s General Board of Church and Society, declared, "President Bush often reminds the American people that intolerant words of a few militant Islamic leaders are not representative of Islam. I am here to tell the American people that the comments of Rev. Falwell and others on last Sunday’s ‘60 Minutes’ are not representative of American Christianity."

[Churlant]

O.K. it ain't so. Your interpretation is the exact opposite of its plain understanding in common english. He says "He" and that means "all muslims" to you. So what if he said "all muslims worship a false idol" You would then say that he must have been talking about a specific muslim and not all. :rolleyes: I am ignoring his underlying mentality because his statements don't suggest one unless you accept your claim that the meaning of what he says the exact opposite of the meaning of the words.


I'm done with this. If you can't understand how a statement may contain many different meanings, then we agree to disagree. I did the best I could to explain that not everything is read literally and not every comment should be taken at face value.


O.K. Based on what? I mean besides your own preconcieved ideas about the guy being a bigot. What proof exists that what he said is not what he means?


Didn't say he was a bigot. What proof exists that the man even exists? Do I exist? Do you? What proof exists that God exists? Can you prove he meant what he said and not what he meant? Whee...


Huh? If you say "I see a cat" I'm pretty limited in how its interpreted. To be like you I would have to extrapolate from that statement that you hate all cats and want them dead; otherwise why would you be looking for them?


Not really. You could be referring to yourself as a literal cat, or you could be calling yourself an animal. You may mean you are curious by nature... or you are being "catty". It would take a number of things to determine which was the case... including what I know of you at the point you made the statement, the context in which you gave it, and the apparent attitude in which you made the declaration.


Aha!!! Now it all makes sense

" I am simply pointing out that as a fundamentalist, he would believe ANYONE else's god to be a false idol."

And exactly which long established policy of fundamentalists would you like to cite to cement this astonishing statement of religious bigotry?

It certainly can't be this; Jim Winkler, General Secretary of the United Methodist Church’s General Board of Church and Society, declared, "President Bush often reminds the American people that intolerant words of a few militant Islamic leaders are not representative of Islam. I am here to tell the American people that the comments of Rev. Falwell and others on last Sunday’s ‘60 Minutes’ are not representative of American Christianity."

No problem here... a fundamentalist, as I am using the term, refers to someone who takes words written in the Bible as literal Truth. The Bible clearly states that any God who isn't The Lord is a false idol, therefore if you do not worship Jesus Christ and his Daddy, your God is false.

If my opposition to this kind of nonsense is "religious bigotry", then so be it. One might consider that the dismissal of every religion but your own, however, is much more fitting the term "bigotry".

But hey, whatever floats Noah's Boat...

-JC

[Janet]

God does not favor the winner of this battle or that. God only judges the souls of the participants. Did you commit sin in this battle, or did you manage to escape it?

Your account with God will be adjusted accordingly.

As for our troops, the best prayer would be one to bring them home from this terrible mess we've made for ourselves.

World domination ain't as easy as it used to be.



x

Amen, my friend - amen!!!!!

We are ALL children of God, whether we call ourselves Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindi, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, or whatever. ALL CHILDREN OF THE SAME GOD!!!!!

:flowers:

[chukster8614]

Well, impressions of Christianity can be wrong by secularists who choose to dally in it for political purposes.
Unlike religious fundamentalists who cite scripture for political purposes (i.e., justifying war). It seems there isn't much of a difference between Al Queda and The American Religious Right in this respect.
Christ was talking about enduring insults not rolling over and permitting themselves to be killed.
Yeah, like Jesus really put up a fight when he was being beaten and flogged on his way to being crucified.

[Mr.BlueOil]

It's hard to belive this started out as a prayer for troops...

Unlike religious fundamentalists who cite scripture for political purposes (i.e., justifying war). It seems there isn't much of a difference between Al Queda and The American Religious Right in this respect.

On the surface no. I don't expect there will ever be. In the movie hero the ultimate ideal for a hero or warrior is to return home and lay down his / her weapon forever. I guess the ultimate ideal for a philosopher would be to one day strike a common ground, accept each others differances, share new found truths, and rewrite books like the bible and introduce them on the market as common knowledge of life. Don't see either happening in the near future.


Yeah, like Jesus really put up a fight when he was being beaten and flogged on his way to being crucified.

If Jesus existed then he was the greatest live soap opera actor of all time. This act consumed his life for it was his life, upon realization that he may be killed for his view, he understood his view was such a positive movement in the dirrection for the evolution of man kind that he took upon the fact that not fighting his crucifiction would be like putting a giant wall up with his teachings that would stand in stone for thousands of years. You can cast doubt on someone that says one thing and does another, like if he did resist and escaped, and raised an army to fight he would be known as some sort of tyrant. But by being labled something that the people who followed him would never accept for his actions never condemed to think so, then by his die'n could he never cast doubt on who he was.

Make sense?

[Mr.BlueOil]

Although his teaching as written in the bible still hold some basic moral values people have evolved, but not all, so rather then discarding everthing from religions and completly rewriting it all. I think we should simply offer updates for people who can see past what's been placed infront of them.

[blueactive]

I'm done with this. If you can't understand how a statement may contain many different meanings, then we agree to disagree. I did the best I could to explain that not everything is read literally and not every comment should be taken at face value.


Yes, let's be done with this. You ended up proving your point about the General painting all muslims with one brush by doing it yourself with Fundamentalist Christians. You even go so far as to change the definition of Fundamentalist Christian to suit your own prejudices against them.

"A fundamentalist Christian is a Christian who holds the Bible to be infallible, historically accurate, and decisive in all issues of controversy that the Bible is believed to directly address; which was the central issue for which the Christian Fundamentalist movement has contended."



Didn't say he was a bigot. What proof exists that the man even exists? Do I exist? Do you? What proof exists that God exists? Can you prove he meant what he said and not what he meant? Whee....


No, not in the self created world that you have invented here. Where words have their opposite meanings and the intentions of the listener have more importance than the meaning of the spoken word. And if the General did say that all muslims worship idols and false Gods, he would be a bigot.


No problem here... a fundamentalist, as I am using the term, refers to someone who takes words written in the Bible as literal Truth. The Bible clearly states that any God who isn't The Lord is a false idol, therefore if you do not worship Jesus Christ and his Daddy, your God is false.

If you actually ever read a Bible for more than your own self amusement you would find this to be untrue. Nevertheless, your smear against Fundamentalist Christians relies on an invented definition that conforms to your prejudices.


If my opposition to this kind of nonsense is "religious bigotry", then so be it. One might consider that the dismissal of every religion but your own, however, is much more fitting the term "bigotry".

But hey, whatever floats Noah's Boat...

Yes, I'm sure your nasty disrespectful demeanor towards Christians makes you feel very 'edgy' and 'cool' but the religious bigotry that I see is your creation of a false definition of Fundamentalist Christians that you then use to paint them all as bigots. I keep waiting for some moderator to step in here and say something about defaming remarks regarding religion. :confused:

(Now, if you will excuse me, this exchange has left me feeling slimed and dirty, I'm hitting the showers to try and scrub this filth off myself)

[Redratio1]

Yes, I'm sure your nasty disrespectful demeanor towards Christians makes you feel very 'edgy' and 'cool' but the religious bigotry that I see is your creation of a false definition of Fundamentalist Christians that you then use to paint them all as bigots. I keep waiting for some moderator to step in here and say something about defaming remarks regarding religion. :confused:

:lol: A little overstating things here.

[blueactive]

:lol: A little overstating things here.


You thought his posts were great. Am I supposed to be surprised that you feel this way? :rolleyes:

[Redratio1]

Dunno, are you?

[Mr.BlueOil]

I don't think he is surprised. You see he knows everything, even the things he only knows a little of, he's knows because he's always right. His spirit is divine, don't you see? That's why rather then having more natural thoughts he's living off of someone elses. To be with a divine spirit is to follow others contently, never questioning anything, and lashing out when your questioned. Helk I bet the word divine and it's meaning was created with the thought that he would eventually exist. That way we would have word to discribe such a follower. Divine.

[chukster8614]

I'd like to actually apologize for some of the comments I made on this thread. I just got inscensed by some things I read and let myself get carried away without thinking twice about how I might have been offending some peoples' beliefs -- especially at such a sensitive time of the year. I'm an a##.

Happy New Year everybody. I hope it's a good one ...

[Churlant]

Yes, let's be done with this. You ended up proving your point about the General painting all muslims with one brush by doing it yourself with Fundamentalist Christians. You even go so far as to change the definition of Fundamentalist Christian to suit your own prejudices against them.

"A fundamentalist Christian is a Christian who holds the Bible to be infallible, historically accurate, and decisive in all issues of controversy that the Bible is believed to directly address; which was the central issue for which the Christian Fundamentalist movement has contended."



a fundamentalist, as I am using the term, refers to someone who takes words written in the Bible as literal Truth.


You know.. as I look at the two, I can't really tell how I managed to "change the definition"... my definition may be a bit shorter, but the bigger points are the same. :shrug:


No, not in the self created world that you have invented here. Where words have their opposite meanings and the intentions of the listener have more importance than the meaning of the spoken word. And if the General did say that all muslims worship idols and false Gods, he would be a bigot.


Again - words can have many meanings. They may even have different meanings to different people. A person rarely speaks in purely literal terms. Body language also adds to the mix - a person may say one thing, and if you can see them saying it, you will know they mean the opposite. This is not obscure or a hard lesson. Take an english class or two.


If you actually ever read a Bible for more than your own self amusement you would find this to be untrue. Nevertheless, your smear against Fundamentalist Christians relies on an invented definition that conforms to your prejudices.


I'm sorry, what other meaning do you give when the Bible tells us the only way into Heaven is through Jesus Christ? As someone who doesn't believe in multiple meanings to people's statements, you certainly would understand the Bible directly states no other faith but Christianity will receive everlasting life. I am not smearing anyone or inventing anything. I base my comments on your own beliefs.



Yes, I'm sure your nasty disrespectful demeanor towards Christians makes you feel very 'edgy' and 'cool' but the religious bigotry that I see is your creation of a false definition of Fundamentalist Christians that you then use to paint them all as bigots. I keep waiting for some moderator to step in here and say something about defaming remarks regarding religion. :confused:

(Now, if you will excuse me, this exchange has left me feeling slimed and dirty, I'm hitting the showers to try and scrub this filth off myself)


Nasty? You seek to deny the humanity of entire groups of people, and *I* am the nasty one? You make some childish remarks about showering, and I am the one being slimy? Excuse me for standing up for myself here. The only thing that is tiring about this is the constant pity-party the fundamentalists throw for themselves. You poor persecuted zealots... how awful it must be to have someone actively question and criticize your beliefs.

Welcome to the new world. You don't get a free pass on your bigotry, where anyone believing different is burned alive or expelled from society. You WILL be held accountable for the destructiveness of your particular brand of faith - and no amount of "poor me, look at how mean Churlant is being" will prevent that responsibility.

-JC

[Michele]

It's always amusing to me to read the strained contortions of the non-religious when they attempt to explain what the Christian faith means to Christians. :rolleyes:

can't be as amusing as it is to read the strained wisdom of some of those who call themselves christians attempting to pray in the name of a god they pretend to know something about whilst backhandedly chiding the god of another religion they seem to know nothing about. :cool:

[Redratio1]

Yeah it must be great to find all answers to the universe contained in one little book. Like nothing else could possible be outside of its text.

[blueactive]

You know.. as I look at the two, I can't really tell how I managed to "change the definition"... my definition may be a bit shorter, but the bigger points are the same. :shrug:


OF COURSE YOU DON'T!!!... That's two thirds of your problem. The overwhelming majorty of people who make defaming, irreligious, insulting remarks to people of Faith are utterly clueless as to why their remarks generate such outrage.



Again - words can have many meanings. They may even have different meanings to different people. A person rarely speaks in purely literal terms. Body language also adds to the mix - a person may say one thing, and if you can see them saying it, you will know they mean the opposite. This is not obscure or a hard lesson. Take an english class or two.

I think you might consider repeating 1st Grade English. Words have a meaning first, that may then be considered in a wider context. Body language? Come back to earth,....please.



I'm sorry, what other meaning do you give when the Bible tells us the only way into Heaven is through Jesus Christ? As someone who doesn't believe in multiple meanings to people's statements, you certainly would understand the Bible directly states no other faith but Christianity will receive everlasting life. I am not smearing anyone or inventing anything. I base my comments on your own beliefs..

You have no idea what I believe. My beliefs were part of your discussion, with yourself, about how bigoted Christians are. And again, if you actually READ a Bible or ASKED a Christian some questions about their beliefs you could avoid coming off with such crack-pot theories about what you think Christians believe.

So in the hopes of removing your ignorance of what Christians actually believe; You cannot reject a God you do not know. You cannot deny Christ if you never hear the message. You cannot sin against God unless you know it is a sin. A muslim who has no understanding of the Salvation of Christ cannot break a covenant that he has never seen. He is blameless before God. The only way you can commit such a mortal sin is to accept the message and later reject and denounce it. Then you're in deep trouble.





Nasty? You seek to deny the humanity of entire groups of people, and *I* am the nasty one? You make some childish remarks about showering, and I am the one being slimy? Excuse me for standing up for myself here. The only thing that is tiring about this is the constant pity-party the fundamentalists throw for themselves. You poor persecuted zealots... how awful it must be to have someone actively question and criticize your beliefs.

And that nastiness continues right here. To say that I seek to deny the humanity of of entire groups is a FLAT OUT LIE unsupportable by anything that I have written here. You started by inventing a new meaning for words in a prayer, then inventing a new meaning for the words of a General, then you began inventing beliefs that you ascribed to me, now you invent my intentions. And what questions did you raise about my beliefs? The entire sum of your 'big move' to blow the lid off religion is to engage in gross errors in Christian beliefs based on a phoney definition of what they are so you can call them, and me, bigoted.


Welcome to the new world. You don't get a free pass on your bigotry, where anyone believing different is burned alive or expelled from society. You WILL be held accountable for the destructiveness of your particular brand of faith - and no amount of "poor me, look at how mean Churlant is being" will prevent that responsibility.


And we return to your unbalanced hatred of the religious again. If the 87% majority of Christians in this country wanted anyone believing differently, "burned alive," surely you would have been part of a bonfire somewhere already. You're probably safe from such a fate and instead are free to invent monsters in your own mind that can't really harm you. Harmless monsters that you can puff into huge beasts that can be slain only by the hero you have invented in yourself. You seem to have a misplaced 'messiah complex' that you could use some help with. Go ahead and make the call.

[Churlant]

OF COURSE YOU DON'T!!!... That's two thirds of your problem. The overwhelming majorty of people who make defaming, irreligious, insulting remarks to people of Faith are utterly clueless as to why their remarks generate such outrage.


You continue to claim my definition is so radically different from your own.. but you've yet to show why. I said "fundamentalists" believe the Bible as Literal Truth. YOU said "fundamentalists" believe the Bible as infallible. Please, oh please explain to me how these two are so different?


I think you might consider repeating 1st Grade English. Words have a meaning first, that may then be considered in a wider context. Body language? Come back to earth,....please.


Nonsense. Words will almost always have multiple possible meanings. As I've said, most people don't speak in purely literal terms. And YES, "body language" IS a valid and constantly used expression, despite your dismissal. It is more subtle and complex than typical english expressions, however, so probably wouldn't have been covered in your 1st grade class.


You have no idea what I believe. My beliefs were part of your discussion, with yourself, about how bigoted Christians are. And again, if you actually READ a Bible or ASKED a Christian some questions about their beliefs you could avoid coming off with such crack-pot theories about what you think Christians believe.


Please pay attention. When I refer to "fundamentalists", I mean just that. I am not, not have I ever, referring to just some random Christian or ALL Christians. I speak of those who hold to literal translations of the Bible (or infallible, if you must). You have revealed yourself to believe in just this fashion, whether you want to admit it or not. :)



So in the hopes of removing your ignorance of what Christians actually believe; You cannot reject a God you do not know. You cannot deny Christ if you never hear the message. You cannot sin against God unless you know it is a sin. A muslim who has no understanding of the Salvation of Christ cannot break a covenant that he has never seen. He is blameless before God. The only way you can commit such a mortal sin is to accept the message and later reject and denounce it. Then you're in deep trouble.


According to you, or every Christian? If you believe this way, then I'm actually quite glad. All too many Christian extremists (you know, fundamentalist, infallible Bible types) will cast anyone not accepting of Jesus our of Heaven as soon as the Second Coming arrives. In the mean time they may still not get to join the party, depending on which nutc^h^h^h^h person you ask. And then we have those guys who eat shrimp and sleep with other men... they don't get to Pass Go and Collect $200 either.



And that nastiness continues right here. To say that I seek to deny the humanity of of entire groups is a FLAT OUT LIE unsupportable by anything that I have written here. You started by inventing a new meaning for words in a prayer, then inventing a new meaning for the words of a General, then you began inventing beliefs that you ascribed to me, now you invent my intentions. And what questions did you raise about my beliefs? The entire sum of your 'big move' to blow the lid off religion is to engage in gross errors in Christian beliefs based on a phoney definition of what they are so you can call them, and me, bigoted.


You surpasses any possible "nastiness" of mine with your ridiculous "shower" remarks. You've been without all claims at righteousness for many more posts than that. I have invented nothing. Perhaps I do sound like a broken record, however... as for bigotry. Tell you what - accept the possible existence of Gods other than your own, accept homosexual marriage, and accept the Bible as an inspired, though demonstrably flawed, book - and we will remove the declaration of "bigot" from your good name. Otherwise I can only go by the existing definitions.. and this one has a dictionary entry, if you still want to claim I'm inventing things.


And we return to your unbalanced hatred of the religious again. If the 87% majority of Christians in this country wanted anyone believing differently, "burned alive," surely you would have been part of a bonfire somewhere already. You're probably safe from such a fate and instead are free to invent monsters in your own mind that can't really harm you. Harmless monsters that you can puff into huge beasts that can be slain only by the hero you have invented in yourself. You seem to have a misplaced 'messiah complex' that you could use some help with. Go ahead and make the call.

:rolleyes:

-JC

[blueactive]

You continue to claim my definition is so radically different from your own.. but you've yet to show why. I said "fundamentalists" believe the Bible as Literal Truth. YOU said "fundamentalists" believe the Bible as infallible. Please, oh please explain to me how these two are so different?

How can anything be explained to you about anything? Since each word of our language has multiple meanings you might think my explainations are a recipe for cooking chicken instead. It might come as a shock to you but there is a huge difference between the Bible being "literal truth" and "infallible" in matters it means to address. But if literal truth and infallible mean the same thing in your mind, definitions contrary to yours, even if forming the basis of understanding in the english language are useless. Our language and its words exist to have its meanings changed by you at your discretion anyway.



Nonsense. Words will almost always have multiple possible meanings. As I've said, most people don't speak in purely literal terms. And YES, "body language" IS a valid and constantly used expression, despite your dismissal. It is more subtle and complex than typical english expressions, however, so probably wouldn't have been covered in your 1st grade class.?

What was covered is that you actually have to observe something to make observations about it. The General was not interviewed on video tape, the reporter has only released his quotes in writing. So you talking about body language changing the meaning, when no body language exists, is,...well, nevermind what it is :rolleyes:



Please pay attention. When I refer to "fundamentalists", I mean just that. I am not, not have I ever, referring to just some random Christian or ALL Christians. I speak of those who hold to literal translations of the Bible (or infallible, if you must). You have revealed yourself to believe in just this fashion, whether you want to admit it or not.?


If the General is speaking of ALL muslims when he makes reference to a specfic "he" amoung them, why aren't you doing the same thing? Why don't the grammer rules you apply to him, apply to you as well? As you well know, words can have multiple meanings inside the same usage. You can say fundamentalists while meaning all Christians, which is what I think you are doing. You labeled me a fundamentalist and I'm not, so the proof is in the pudding; You did mean ALL Christians because you included me in your definition of fundamentalist.




According to you, or every Christian?.?

I don't pretend to know what is in th heart of ALL Christians, that is the ground you have staked out for yourself.



If you believe this way, then I'm actually quite glad. All too many Christian extremists (you know, fundamentalist, infallible Bible types) will cast anyone not accepting of Jesus our of Heaven as soon as the Second Coming arrives. In the mean time they may still not get to join the party, depending on which nutc^h^h^h^h person you ask. And then we have those guys who eat shrimp and sleep with other men... they don't get to Pass Go and Collect $200 either.

And I think you get these things from some comic book you are reading upside down in a mirror. I can't prove it,....just a theory at the moment.




as for bigotry. Tell you what - accept the possible existence of Gods other than your own, accept homosexual marriage, and accept the Bible as an inspired, though demonstrably flawed, book - and we will remove the declaration of "bigot" from your good name. Otherwise I can only go by the existing definitions.. and this one has a dictionary entry, if you still want to claim I'm inventing things.

Mighty tolerant and enlightened of you to be willing to accept Christians if they come to your terms and basically renounce what being a Christian is. They may lose their souls but you will be their buddy. I pass...

[Churlant]

How can anything be explained to you about anything? Since each word of our language has multiple meanings you might think my explainations are a recipe for cooking chicken instead. It might come as a shock to you but there is a huge difference between the Bible being "literal truth" and "infallible" in matters it means to address. But if literal truth and infallible mean the same thing in your mind, definitions contrary to yours, even if forming the basis of understanding in the english language are useless. Our language and its words exist to have its meanings changed by you at your discretion anyway.


Hm... you didn't really answer my question, so I assume you can't. It's cool. You've been wrong before.



What was covered is that you actually have to observe something to make observations about it. The General was not interviewed on video tape, the reporter has only released his quotes in writing. So you talking about body language changing the meaning, when no body language exists, is,...well, nevermind what it is :rolleyes:


The "body language" reference was a general comment on language in general, not directed at the General's comment itself - nor did I make it out to be. Simply pointing out we, as a people, communicate in a multitude of ways that often do not translate literally.


If the General is speaking of ALL muslims when he makes reference to a specfic "he" amoung them, why aren't you doing the same thing? Why don't the grammer rules you apply to him, apply to you as well? As you well know, words can have multiple meanings inside the same usage. You can say fundamentalists while meaning all Christians, which is what I think you are doing. You labeled me a fundamentalist and I'm not, so the proof is in the pudding; You did mean ALL Christians because you included me in your definition of fundamentalist.


Sorry, I just figure someone who references the Second Coming as if they believe it will happen is at least somewhat fundamental in their beliefs... :rolleyes: No need to deny what you are - it's not good for you.



I don't pretend to know what is in th heart of ALL Christians, that is the ground you have staked out for yourself.

And I think you get these things from some comic book you are reading upside down in a mirror. I can't prove it,....just a theory at the moment.


Again - coming up with insults that would make a grade-schooler proud isn't exactly helping your convoluted case. :shrug:


Mighty tolerant and enlightened of you to be willing to accept Christians if they come to your terms and basically renounce what being a Christian is. They may lose their souls but you will be their buddy. I pass...

Sorry to pass this on.. but my "comic book" tells me that a person who believes homosexuals deserve equal rights can still be a "Christian". Your statement is a perfect example of fundamentalist Christian bigotry... I couldn't have asked for a better return. You even exclude people who share your faith if they don't agree yours is the only way to get there. :lol:

If "being a Christian" to you means denial of facts or willful ignorance, perhaps you need to get out and meet more Christians. The greatest person I know who maintains the Christian faith has managed to transcend the bigotry prescribed by a literal reading (sorry, infallible reading :rolleyes: ) of the Bible. Her wisdom is earned and her teachings on this matter aren't likely to be upstaged by your petty declarations of discrimination or anti-Christian whining.

-JC

[blueactive]

Hm... you didn't really answer my question, so I assume you can't. It's cool. You've been wrong before.

"Infallible" and "literal" have totally different meanings in normally understood English. How I can explain the difference when you already think that the two words are interchangible with each other? And that a literal understanding of words is not possible because you think words have opposite meanings based on things like body language and secret intentions. :rolleyes:




The "body language" reference was a general comment on language in general, not directed at the General's comment itself - nor did I make it out to be. Simply pointing out we, as a people, communicate in a multitude of ways that often do not translate literally..

And in the absense of such observable non verbal communication clues you are left with the literal meanings of words as they are written. You just take the non-verbal stuff that isn't there and pretend it is anyway, so.....





Sorry, I just figure someone who references the Second Coming as if they believe it will happen is at least somewhat fundamental in their beliefs... :rolleyes:


Well, when you someday broaden your horizons to include actual intellectual pursuits you will find that all Christians believe in the Second Coming and its judgement. But you did confirm my belief that you view all Christians as 'fundamentalists.'





Again - coming up with insults that would make a grade-schooler proud isn't exactly helping your convoluted case.

I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to insult you.



Sorry to pass this on.. but my "comic book" tells me that a person who believes homosexuals deserve equal rights can still be a "Christian". Your statement is a perfect example of fundamentalist Christian bigotry... I couldn't have asked for a better return. You even exclude people who share your faith if they don't agree yours is the only way to get there..

Well, like I said, your tolerance of others extends only so far as their tendency to agree with you. The old joke is that the modern definition of a "bigot" is someone beating a liberal in an argument.



If "being a Christian" to you means denial of facts or willful ignorance, perhaps you need to get out and meet more Christians. The greatest person I know who maintains the Christian faith has managed to transcend the bigotry prescribed by a literal reading (sorry, infallible reading :rolleyes: ) of the Bible. Her wisdom is earned and her teachings on this matter aren't likely to be upstaged by your petty declarations of discrimination or anti-Christian whining.

If you think she's a Christian it's probable that she isn't. Christianity is very much about excluding the possibility of a multitude of Gods. It's about the religious aspects of the sacrimental act of marriage being exclusive to certain things and people. It's about the Bible being the revealed word of the Creator. It's not an "inspired" book of "flawed" ideas. You're thinking of Tony Robbins. And your definition of bigotry clearly includes everything contrary to your own bigotry. Any pretense about you being tolerant or respectful of diversity in others is a joke. :rolleyes:

[Strel]

Once again, Conan the Grammarian splits even the finest hairs with his Semantic Battleaxe +2.


:rolleyes:

[Redratio1]

"Infallible" and "literal" have totally different meanings in normally understood English. How I can explain the difference when you already think that the two words are interchangible with each other? And that a literal understanding of words is not possible because you think words have opposite meanings based on things like body language and secret intentions.

Infallible is pretentious, literal is idiotic.

And in the absense of such observable non verbal communication clues you are left with the literal meanings of words as they are written. You just take the non-verbal stuff that isn't there and pretend it is anyway, so.....

Now THATS using your head. :rolleyes:

[blueactive]

Infallible is pretentious, literal is idiotic.


Infallible as it relates to the Bible is as follows;

Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.


Now, here are four (4) definitions of the word literal.

Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.

Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.

Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.

Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation.
Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.


Literal and infallible do not bare the slightest similarity to each other in common usage, they have totally different meanings.

[Redratio1]

Literal and infallible do not bare the slightest similarity to each other in common usage, they have totally different meanings.

Duh! But in your case infallible reading of the Bible is the literal version.

[Strel]

Literal and infallible mean exactly the same thing when you are using them to refer to the veracity and accuracy of a text.

There is such a thing as context you know. Quibbling about the dictionary definitions of words is usually an attempt to distract others from the weaknesses on your position - another form of straw man "can't we please argue about something I can maybe win at" argument, and reaching for the dictionary is the cheapest way of doing it. Hence the quibbling over the "precise" meanings of words outside of their usage context to try and take the argument off on a tangent.

I notice that certain posters tend to do this frequently. :cool:

[blueactive]

Literal and infallible mean exactly the same thing when you are using them to refer to the veracity and accuracy of a text.

There is such a thing as context you know. Quibbling about the dictionary definitions of words is usually an attempt to distract others from the weaknesses on your position - another form of straw man "can't we please argue about something I can maybe win at" argument, and reaching for the dictionary is the cheapest way of doing it. Hence the quibbling over the "precise" meanings of words outside of their usage context to try and take the argument off on a tangent.

I notice that certain posters tend to do this frequently. :cool:


I hate to disturb your brilliant attempt at cleverness here, but that is the precise reason I offered the 'context' of the meanings in question. When it comes to the Bible and religion, literal and infallible have totally different meanings, they are not interchangable.

And quibbling would apply when you are talking about the difference between words like 'near' and 'close.' We are talking here about a difference like the one that exist between 'lemon' and 'cow.'


What you are actually talking about is the fallacy of ambiguity, specifically; equivocation. Literal does not mean 'word for word,' it means infallible, incapable of error. Bible "literalists" are a tiny minority and are generally ignorant of Bible Scholarship, but the idea of Biblical "infallibility" relates to the Bible being incapable of error in the areas of morality and faith that it addresses. But for the purposes of this argument "infallibility" means ignorant of Bible Scholarship too. Not to quibble here, but Biblical infallibility is a central item of faith for Christianity in general whether a part of the 100,000 or so Bible literalists or 900 million Catholics. We may therefore understand that all people calling themselves Christian are therefore ignorant of Bible Scholarship according to agnostics and athiests who know better. Disagreement with this premise reveals bigotry on the part of Christians. Just ask Churlant, that's his position.

[Redratio1]

Infallible eh? I wonder why the New Covenant then?

Or is it NOW infallible. I wonder when the next infallible update will be? Perhaps the Muslims got that update.

[blueactive]

Infallible eh? I wonder why the New Covenant then?

Or is it NOW infallible. I wonder when the next infallible update will be? Perhaps the Muslims got that update.


Yeah, its all nonsense that Christianity, you're much to cool and worldy for it. :rolleyes:

[Redratio1]

Yeah, its all nonsense that Christianity, you're much to cool and worldy for it. :rolleyes:

I guess the Muslims are going to hell then? I mean really Allah is idol worship is it not?

[Churlant]

"Infallible" and "literal" have totally different meanings in normally understood English. How I can explain the difference when you already think that the two words are interchangible with each other? And that a literal understanding of words is not possible because you think words have opposite meanings based on things like body language and secret intentions. :rolleyes:


A few others have already handled this bit of semantics... Call it "infallible", call it "literal Truth", the result remains the same.




Well, when you someday broaden your horizons to include actual intellectual pursuits you will find that all Christians believe in the Second Coming and its judgement. But you did confirm my belief that you view all Christians as 'fundamentalists.'


Either you are an intentional liar, or you are horribly wrong. All Christians understand the Second Coming, but not all of them believe it will come to pass. Many know it is a fiction - the plot of which is somewhat brilliant sci-fi, but the writing of which is sadly boring and repetitive.


I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to insult you.


:shrug: Not impossible, I just prefer a good adult-caliber insult rather than something from High School gym class.


Well, like I said, your tolerance of others extends only so far as their tendency to agree with you. The old joke is that the modern definition of a "bigot" is someone beating a liberal in an argument.


That you lack a qualified definition of "bigot" and the ability to grasp its pertenance to yourself is not my problem. You once again illustrate your nature below...


If you think she's a Christian it's probable that she isn't. Christianity is very much about excluding the possibility of a multitude of Gods. It's about the religious aspects of the sacrimental act of marriage being exclusive to certain things and people. It's about the Bible being the revealed word of the Creator. It's not an "inspired" book of "flawed" ideas. You're thinking of Tony Robbins. And your definition of bigotry clearly includes everything contrary to your own bigotry. Any pretense about you being tolerant or respectful of diversity in others is a joke. :rolleyes:

Right.. you get to decide who is a "Christian" now? :rolleyes: This is exactly what I speak of when I demonize your zealotry.

She most certainly is a Christian. For all your talk of my world view requiring people to "agree" with me, you certainly portray enough of this mentality for both of us. The woman I am referring to is likely a greater Christian than you could aspire to become - at least for a number of years and a number of basic lessons under your belt.

-JC

[ukangel]

Either you are an intentional liar, or you are horribly wrong. All Christians understand the Second Coming, but not all of them believe it will come to pass. Many know it is a fiction - the plot of which is somewhat brilliant sci-fi, but the writing