The voting trends in America and societal changes and influence suggest otherwise. We seem to be getting more "fundamentally Christian" not less.
I’m very curious to see where you’re getting this information as the current sitting president is most definitely not backed by any Fundamentalist movement I’m aware of.
But now you have to define what you mean by Christian. If you don't consider the Bible to be the Word of God were are you getting that Jesus is divine? If you don't think Jesus is Divine, why are you calling yourself a Christian? Do you just simply like a few of his ideas? If so, for those few ideas that you are likely to agree with I guarantee you that you can find older and newer versions of those ideas that are articulated in a more defined and eloquent way. So why even bother using Christ, Jesus or Christianity at all as your religion or moral guideline?
I’m also incredibly curious as to why you feel the need for people to fall into definitions. Is it not enough for people to say that Jesus was a great man, much like they would say Muhammad was, or Gandhi? Is it truly important to the conversation that we label ourselves with these distinctions so we can say who’s right and wrong? Isn’t it better if we simply strive to find the commonality rather then the opposing factors?
When you broaden the definition to include anyone that calls themselves a Christian with no shared aspect of that group of people...well you don't have a definition at all.
Sure you do. “Human” is a good start.
when the youth are being indoctrinated and laws are being made based on religions, and ESPECIALLY dangerous versions there of, then no, confrontation is not part of the problem. it's required.
Then do not complain, when you become militant, that those who you are becoming militant towards do the same. Their positions will simply become more entrenched, and they will only become even more radical. If you wish this to become a battlefield, you will find that they will fight until the end of time in their ignorance.
i'm not mocking anyone (intentionally). i'm stating that an idea that's been posed is rediculous. an idea can be rediculous without the holder being so
But surely you must be aware that people will take this as mockery. It cannot be the case that people say “This is laughable” and mean it in anyway besides derisively. It doesn’t matter if that is not your intent. It only matters that it is how it is received.
yet you're so very sure that that it is stating that it's explicitely (and solely) talking about non-consensual sex.
Only insofar as it makes more sense.
again, homosexuality, being part of nature. hasn't changed. certain percentages of humans (i'm postulating here because, for obvious reasons there isn't much actual history here) have always been attracted to their own sex. it's a logical conclusion that these people would find others of the same ilk, and, well you know where it goes from there. it's simply not logical to suggest otherwise
This statement I cannot disagree with. It is most certainly true that there have been people throughout all of ancient history that have been attracted to members of the same sex. It’s simple, basic biology that leads us to that conclusion. However, that has never been the heart of my argument.
My point is this; Ancient Homosexuality was defined as a non-consensual relationship between same sex couples. In turn, the authors of the Bible speak out against same sex relationships, as they view them as non-consensual, and therefore morally wrong. Modern Homosexuality is defined as a consensual relationship between same sex couples, and would be appalled at Ancient Homosexual practices.
In short; The Homosexuality of the Bible is not the Homosexuality of Today, so it is pointless and foolish to attempt to adhere verses that speak about Homosexuality to today’s Modern Homosexual.
it mentions the social power differential betwen the "active" and the "passive" but it doesn't say "slave" and "master".
This is a distinction that we are welcome to make in Modern culture, but not in Ancient culture. You were either a slave or you were not. The distinctions were literally Citizen, Slave, Foreigner, Woman. There was no room for “Passive” and “Active” partners. There was Citizen or Slave.
....i...ok look, i don't know where your sources are. i just don't. the ENTIRE premise of Christianity is layed out in as much detail as you care to find. Lady talks to god, god tells her she's pregnant, she's like "what, i'm a virgin", god's like "i know (*wink and a double shooter*)", they go to a manger, have a baby, BOOM son of God. That's not a modern interpretation. it's THE interpretation, that always has been christianity. before that, it wasn't christianity..
I’m incredibly interested to see how interested you are in pigeonholing Christianity into a single defined term. Certainly what you’ve stated there is the story of Christianity, I can’t really debate that as it’s fairly explicitly stated in the Bible. I think you’re having difficulty grasping that there are many of us that are just fine with that being what it was intended to be, a Story. And a fairly important one for western culture as well.
As far as religion is concerned, it’s the first story to put divine power into the hands of man. Before this you have stories of Zeus, and Jupiter, stories about the gods, who are above humanity. Theological thought before Christianity was basically “We are worms beneath the feet of the gods.” The story of Jesus is a story of a man and his interactions with the Divine, and his trust and faith in that Divine figure.
Let me stress something here. The story of Jesus is not literal. It is a story intended to illicit a point in the culture that is hearing it. That means that it is specifically fashioned in such a way to bring meaning to those who hear it. I imagine that a Greek man, who has spent his entire life hearing that life is dictated specifically by the gods, would be incredibly interested in the story of Jesus. I imagine he would ask things like “What would happen if Jesus just left? What if he just didn’t do it? Wait, if Jesus is a son of God… aren’t I a son of God too?” These are the questions that story is intended to illicit, and it hasn’t been until extremely recently that those questions were considered “Wrong”.
If you insist on defining Christianity from the Fundamentalist Definition, then the Fundamentalists get exactly what they want.
suggesting that religious folk turn religious conversations into a battlefield because of athiests is rediculous. religious people have been arguing amongst themselves long before athiests became so vocal. they're on the defensive (not all, in general) from their own offshoots and other sects who want to be the "real christians"
I won’t deny that there is certainly a level of confrontation and strife within faiths, but it would be a hefty denial to say that the largest threat isn’t coming from the Atheist Community. I truly have no interest in turning this conversation into a blaming match, but if you wish to have honest communication in this debate, you must cede that there have been Atheists who have been extremely harmful to this conversation as well.
again, a mistake that's often made by the religious, not the athiests (since we don't believe in any of it)
This is opening up a completely different conversation. I suppose all I’ll say is this; what would you say to a highly religious man who said that “God is Nothing.”?
it's not vague.
It actually is. That’s more or less the idea. If it wasn’t vague it’d be Science. It’s not. It’s Religion.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Religion actually is. It’s not something you really talk about. It’s something you do. It’s an activity. You meditate/pray/practice on an idea in the hope that you will find a better understanding of that idea. I’ll give you a strictly non-Christian example followed by a Christian one.
In the Wiccan faith there is a teaching on “Potion Making.” The activity itself begins by choosing something in your own life that you’d like to improve upon. For sake of this example I’ll choose something vapid like “I’d like to make a lot of money.” So you seek out the ingredients for the “Money Potion”, and then you combine them all together into a tincture that you, in turn, drink. Now, it would be silly to think that this potion is just going to plop a wad of cash onto your lap, and people who think that’s the point are missing the point.
The point of this activity is to make a contract with yourself that you are going to seek money in the future. It is a pact with yourself, and a moment in time that you can constantly go back to to remind yourself “I made that promise to myself”. It’s one thing to stand in a room and say “I will get more money”. It is quite another to set out in an activity and action. One is just words, the other is a physical action. It’s the start of something new that could, potentially, change your life. And while you are simply moving forward in that direction anyway, that potion is the first step.
Prayer in the Christian faith is widely misinterpreted as “Asking Jesus for Cars.” Prayer is more akin to meditation; Dwelling on an idea to find a better understanding of that idea, whatever that idea might be. This is an active activity, and not something that is just passively done. It is ritualistic by nature, and not simply a spiritual cash grab.
The story of Christ is actually kind of secondary to the faith, in a lot of ways. Certainly his is the central story, but only insofar as Buddha’s story is the center of Buddhism, and Muhammad’s is the center of Islam. Their ideas are of far more importance, and if we mire them in the literal tellings, then the conversation basically becomes no more valuable then a conversation about who would win a fight, Batman or Superman.
Jesus as well as other Spiritual Counterparts, are not superheroes. They were men who had some ideas about how things should be done, and I think they would be incredibly upset to see that people are attempting to make the conversation different then that.
You’re saying “To be a Christian you must believe the literal story of Jesus.” I am saying “To be a Christian you only have to see Jesus’ point.” If that means that there’s a Buddhist/Muslim/Christian/Jew walking around, then I’m perfectly ok with that, as should you.
Again, I’m not refuting that there are Christians out there that think otherwise. All I am saying is when you make the conversation about those people, they get exactly what they want.
(A) Stop self-identifying as gay, and (B) stop having gay relationships. To get into more specifics.
I wish to challenge you on the issue of Homosexuality and the Bible. You seem to be a very well read and well spoken man of Faith, and if this is your belief, I wish to take the counter-position.
I do not believe that Homosexuality, as it is defined by Modern Culture, is wrong within Biblical Scripture. I believe that people are using an old definition of Homosexuality that has changed throughout time. I believe that the Ancient Definition of Homosexuality is “Non-Consensual Sexual Activity between same sex people.” And that the Modern Definition of Homosexuality is “Consensual Sexual Activity between same sex people.” I believe that people who attempt to adhere Scriptural passages to Modern Day Homosexuality, they are mistaken in doing so.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
Also, Happy Holidays everyone! Let's all go celebrate our respective holidays together and enjoy the time we have with those we love! (Also, a drink couldn't hurt!