cartman

___________________________________________
Originally posted by Donald Morgan:

If I had to choose one "picker" of the fundamentals, a "picker" which exists today, I would choose the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary.
____________________________________________

Don,

Since you have stated that you have more respect for fundamentalists, it is only natural that you would choose a conservative seminary.

I, on the other hand, would prefer the fellows of the Jesus Seminar. Or, at the very least, professors from Vanderbilt.

Herein lies the rub.

John

-DM-

The question was who would I choose to decide what was fundamental, not what I would choose as a personal preference were I to have to put up with one or the other.

Me too. Please understand that there is a difference between what I respect and what I would prefer.

--Don--

Rich

I believe all the books (notice that the Bible is books not a book) of the Bible...the point was Ron doesn't and his tactic was simply to try to convict me with some words out of books he doesn't believe in. How can this serve to prove his point? If he wants to argue that destroying a family is better than keeping your views to yourself then do it, but don't try to silence me with a tactic I don't support...what would be appropriate here? I could start quoting Bible verses back to him and that would accomplish what? Get us into a pissing contest on biblical interpretation. The issue at hand is the morality of what Jesus is Bored posted.

I didn't say that they couldn't (hmm Don are you starting to mind read here? You must have been hanging out with me too long!) I said that it is a common tactic of fundys that can't support their position with rational thought and so they just spout Bible verses...you do of course see the distinction?

and again...great slip in of a totally irrelevant point on liberal, revisionist Christianity (more labels...but I'm still not hopping into your box)...who you do or don't have respect for is irrelevant to my point (and yours).

[ August 18, 2001: Message edited by: Rich ]

diana

Whew. Thank heaven.

diana

By the way, if there is any Xn out there who understands Amos' theology and agrees with it, please step up to the plate and explain it to me. So far, every post of his suggests he's a beer short of a six-pack.

As far as "coming out" as an atheist is concerned, I've never regretted being myself. If one's Xn family members can't love and respect you despite your atheism/agnosticism, I suspect they didn't love and respect you to begin with.

You have to go with what's right for you, but I can't live a lie to keep peace. I'm not out to start wars, but anyone who does not respect me, IMO, only thinks they love me.

Love and respect go together in my world. Without respect, love is a facade. Or worse, pity.

I simply do not believe your professions of love if you demonstrate your lack of respect for me (i.e., if you refuse to acknowledge that I have a brain and can use it, that I take responsibility for my own actions, and that I reject--with reason--your belief system).

And anyone who proves themselves undeserving of my respect also proves themselves undeserving of my love.

After an adjustment period and with the exception of one cousin who went berserk and demonstrated an amazing level of ignorance and closed-mindedness , I've found that my family--who lives and breathes their fundamentalist beliefs--does love and respect me.

If it is selfish of me to require respect from those who claim to love me, then so be it.

d

-DM-

The Bible is a book, it is a book composed of many books. In fact, "Book" refers specifically to "The Bible" as per definition #5 in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition, © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company, Electronic version, to whit: "5. Book. The Bible."

If you believe all the books which comprise that book, then it serves very well for Ron to use a book which you believe to make his point. The same tactic is used, for example, by creationists who will make a point about evolution by using the writings of evolutionists even though they don't believe those writings.

He has as much right to use whatever tactics he wishes to use to proffer whatever viewpoint he wishes to proffer as you do to use whatever tactics you wish to use to proffer whatever viewpoint you wish to proffer (but I don't think he is necessarily proffering that "destroying a family is [always] better than keeping your views to yourself").

... nor did I say that you had said that they couldn't. And no, I'm not starting to mind-read here.

Yes, I know what you said. And I said: "I have known many "fundys" who are just as capable as you are of supporting their position with rational thought and logical reasoning based on the Bible and what it says. In fact, I have far more respect for the fundamentalists that I have known who can do so than I have for the liberal Christians who corrupt the fundamentals of Christianity with their revisionist approach to that which they find unsavory."

Yes, of course. You do, of course, see my point don't you?

You needn't hop into the box. You are already there. You might want to hop out.

My viewpoint is that if you completely understood what I'm getting at, you wouldn't think it irrelevant.

--Don--

-DM-

Diana:

For what it's worth, I seldom have the foggiest idea what Amos is talking about with regard to his theology, and given that there is not often a response to his theological postings, I think it fairly certain that others are in the same boat.

As far as I can tell--as do many liberal Christians--he has a religion of his own making.

--Don--

Ron Garrett

Rich posts:

I was clear in my original post to JIB in laying out what I believe are rational reasons for being genuine in our relationships, not the least of which is that people who believe we love them also trust love will motivates us not to deceive them.

As for the Bible, I do not believe it is divine in origen and there is much of it I do reject, but "do unto to others as you would have others do unto you," a saying of Hillel, echoed by Buddha and others before and after Jesus, I very much agree with. I would not want an intimate to deceive me about an aspect of their life so monumental.

If you "believe" in these books but do not believe they are morally authoritative, then you are right in step with many other Christians who claim they follow the teacher but reject the teaching. My point in quoting the books was not to prove my opinion posted to JIB, but to illustrate the wide gap between your words and your walk. I posted the verses to expose your hypocrisy of which you convict yourself without any help from me.

I made no such argument. Quite the opposite. Families are no always so fragile as you and JIB seem to fear. My own has been through 31 flavors of hell and conflict and we are still a family. Why assume JIB's family is too weak to hear the truth, or that the end result of the decption is better? What about JIB himself? Is his being unable to share his true feelings and have genuine realtionships with his family too small a thing?

If quoting your own holy book, the very words of your own God, is "a tactic you don't support" your Christianism is a mysterious one. Nor am I interested in silencing you, but it is fun pointing out that your Christian faith is a sham and your morality entirely of your own making. My morality is entirely of my own making, and in general has proven more consistent with what Christians claim than what they in fact do. This situation and your preferred approach, i.e. keep lying and avoiding the hard calls while telling yourself you're doing it out of altruism, proves you are no exception.

Well I for one would be fascinated if you were to treat us to those commandments that urge us to lie, deceive and defraud. There ceretainly are verses that indicate your God actively deceives. Are you following those examples? As for the verses I quoted. if you have an interpretation of these verses that supports your position, please share them for our entertainment. I could use a good belly laugh.

The issue of my response to you was not the morality of what JIB posted, which I had already responded to from a point of view of pragmatism, not morality. The issue of my response to you was what you had posted and that your advice displayed how little Christian morality impinges on your life choices.

[ August 19, 2001: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]

-DM-

Here are some legitimate questions for you, Rich.

1.) What percentage of all those books combined would you say that you believe?
2.) Are there specific portions of any book which you disbelieve?

--Don--

Amos

[QUOTE]Originally posted by diana:
<STRONG>By the way, if there is any Xn out there who understands Amos' theology and agrees with it, please step up to the plate and explain it to me. So far, every post of his suggests he's a beer short of a six-pack.</STRONG>
Hello diana I drink very little but actually had 5 beers last night. My wife buys the beer, for company, I guess, and I/we drink mostly wine and cognac.

No it is not my own religion but if the bible is all allegory we should be able to follow it as allegory. It is actually quite easy once you are on the right track. It is much more difficult to get on the right track because that is not ours to choose.

Amos

[ August 19, 2001: Message edited by: Amos123 ]