sky4it

Later...........

bye for now.

Amaleq13

Quoting the Bible tends to be necessary for most discussions here but you are correct that your faith in the text as an authority in and of itself would not be considered helpful to any argument in this forum.

That will certainly make it difficult for anyone to take you seriously here.

This is the second time you've taken a reasonable standard and turned it into an absurd exaggeration. Please stop. You would be fine citing sources that have been published in professional journals.

Your concerns are without basis. Nobody has been edited and everybody received the same warning.

Please stop wasting space in this thread on this subject and report posts you feel violate the rules. All subsequent posts which ignore this very clear warning will be subject to moderator action.


Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Stephen T-B

"1) My Christianity is about values, treatment of others and such not about engaging others whose treatment of me is horrendous.
2) Cast not your pearls before swine." (sky4it)

Was I the only person who enjoyed the incongruity of these two statements?

funinspace

No, I don't think so…and considering the verses that directly follow the pearls are:
Matt 7 "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! 12 So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

I think someone brought up the notion of dropping the OT notion of an eye for an eye. It does seam to demonstrate a poor hermeneutical understanding of the NT.

Here's a Christian web site that talks about the intent of the pearls and swine phrase as well:

http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/matt7v6.htm
Meditation: You’ve probably heard the expression, don’t put an ear-ring in a pig’s snout! Jesus' expression about "pearls before swine" is pretty similar. Jesus’ concern here is not with exclusivity, but with purity — the purity of the faith which has been entrusted to us by an all-loving and all-wise God. The early church referenced this expression with the Eucharist or the Lord’s Table. In the liturgy of the early church, a proclamation was given shortly before communion: Holy things to the holy. The Didache, a first century manual stated: Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those baptised into the name of the Lord; for, as regards this, the Lord has said, `Give not that which is holy unto dogs.'" The Lord invites us to his table, but we must approach worthily.

funinspace

I didn't call you a fundy. I was giving a hint at why many just might think you are one. Many Christians proudly wear the fundamentalist label, just like others wear the evangelical, Calvinist, or orthodox label. It is just a descriptive term hinting at one's theology/ideology. And logically the 2 words fundy and non-fundy encompasses the grouping of all Christians. So I find your personal interpretation of this being disparaging, to be odd and well outside the normative.
Thanks for explaining your POV. Though most all translations offer versions with voluminous notes, and the teams that worked on the other translations probably took great care and detail as well. But each to their own...

funinspace

That is an odd choice of descriptive word "cult" for Calvinism. The word cult is commonly used (besides the intent to simply be disparaging) to describe a group that uses blatant mind control techniques or is focused almost singularly around 1 person. Calvinism is neither of these. It is one of 2 main branches of theological thought on salvation. It has a fairly strong basis in the texts as does the countering free-will construct. Personally, I find the free-will construct to be a more reasoned interpretation of scripture. But I think the most reasoned conclusion of the 2 divergent views, is that the NT is simply a confused jumble on this subject.

Yahoo dictionary for cult: "A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader."

I don't think many an average Christian considers Presbyterians extremist. They don't live unconventionally, nor under any authoritarian or charismatic leader. Now some may consider there predestinationist views to be wrong, but few would consider their's a "false" faith. Though the person with the tag "Rev. Timothy Muse" doesn't visit here much any more, he is/was usually a articulate, considerate, and respectful defender of Christianity and his particular Calvinist flavor.

Yes, Calvinism is an uglier view of humanity than free-will in my POV. But on the overall scale, it is no worse than most all of the God-breathed notions around the Bible, hell, and it's God; as understood by most conservative, evangelical, or fundamentalist Christians. The God, people of this theological category, worship is a purported entity that has created a new and improved Austwitch for the masses, now encompassing about 2/3's of humanity or 4+ billion people, by his choice of revelation and/or predestination. No person, with an ounce of decency/humanity, would act like this God.

sky4it

Ameleq, Ninjay, Funinspace and Stephen TB

Ameleq:

I have copied to file your recommendations for posting. I will follow them religiously.

NINJAY: Thank you, I have the spelling right. I used the word religiously above just as an illustration. I suppose that anyone who follows a group of any constructs could be considered religious. I recognize that the social construct of the term Religion is used to define most belief systems. The simple point I was trying to make to you is that at the personal level, anyone can be considered religious. Furthermore, my main point is that generally some (and I am not saying you) view the term religious with a connotation that it implies a white robe goody two shoes mentality, which certainly does not fit my view of my own personal life.

Regards,Sky4it

funninspace & Stephen TB:

Actually I do not find an incongruity at all in those two statements. The pearls statement is in fact to have some peace. Notice that the statement is a negative statement. A not is employed. Obviously if there were no pearls tossed at the swine, since pearl did not arrive; they could never miss them. That would mean you have peaceful swine. The next statement is lest they trample them. My simple point was there was lot of "stew" thrown my way, and there was no further point for dialogue under such circumstances. (Now do not get bent over the my usage of the term "swine." Jesus cast out devils out of people of Israeli faith and sent them into the swine. He certainly did not think they(the people) were swine.)Therefore I think there is harmony between that statement and being a person of values and good conduct. Might I suggest that your offense was directed more at the particular passage then at my application of it.

Interestingly, there were several other Jesus statements that have been taken to be rather belittling. My personal favorite is the “heathen” reference, which in not just all encompassing for people who were NOT Old Testament followers of his time. Other statements like, “it is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to dogs” and “Let the dead bury the dead.” Humorously, in the movie “The Princess Bride” Billy Crystal makes one of the funniest remarks of all time when he indicates a person is not dead, only “mostly dead.” Perhaps if Jesus lived in our era to be politically correct he would have to said “ Let the mostly dead bury the mostly dead.”

Funinspace usaid: And logically the 2 words fundy and non-fundy encompasses the grouping of all Christians. So I find your personal interpretation of this being disparaging, to be odd and well outside the normative.

At a different place I recently had a discussion with a couple of atheists and was accused of stereotyping behavior, although not exactly in those words. The upshot was I readily admitted there may not be any such thing as a “Garden Variety Atheist.” I think the same thing holds true for Christians there is not a Garden Variety One. While doubtless I have sat and sipped tea and crumpets with some one you would call a fundamentalist, I have yet to meet a person who says, Hello, John Doe fundamentalist. I am not sure there is a fundamentalist “crede” of any sort. My offense was taken mainly at the words fundie and non-fundie, which to me indicates, Yep, we know what this turkey is all about. Now it is a moot point so lets forget about it.

Funinspace: usaid: That is an odd choice of descriptive word "cult" for Calvinism

I had a very lengthy discussion on Calvinism at another website. I have read many of the writings of John Calvin and other Calvinists. You might find it interesting that an atheist pointed out the conduct of John Calvin during his life; and his conduct probably fits more squarely with what you defined a “cult” to be. Interestingly, the discussion was with a group of people who were considered by mainstream Christian thought to be ‘cult’, but now they have all left the organization. Of the many things we discussed there, one is what the definition of a cult is. The skinny is from my vantage point, there is too much to say about this matter and perhaps is better left topically for another thread.

Gudjonsson

Study the links below. They should settle the question about the validity of alledged Messianic prophecies about Jesus.
http://www.virtualyeshiva.com/counter-index.html
http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html

spin

The name is oatmealia... rhymes with Amelia.

oatmealia

Or Cecelia, which is where I took the name from. "Oh Oatmealia, you're breaking my heart, you're shakin' my confidence, baby."

Thanks for making that correction, though I was beginning to get considerable amusement out of being called just plain oatmeal.