Thinking that Chick has anything to do with orthodox Christianity is a mistake. Interesting site though.
Well, you're absolutely right, whatever "orthodox christianity" is. But if I ever said that Chick "has something to do with Orthodox Christianity," I'll go ahead and mail you a hundred bucks. American.Are we speaking about Greek, or Russian?
no, just orthodox with a small "o."
OK. I understand where you're coming from. But what is orthodox with a small "O?" Is there one christianity that is better than another? What makes Jack Chick's brand of Xtianity, with his conspiracy theories against the Vatican any stranger than any other sect of Christianity? Everyday catholicism still has transubstantiation, everyday baptists still have people falling out in the holy spirit, everyday Presbyterians still believe what everyone else seems to believe--that Jesus flew up into the sky after dying and absorbing our sins into...his blood, or something.. and doing amazing magical feats like raising people from the dead and putting demons in pigs. I don't see Jack Chick as being that "off." I think the other sects like to believe they are normal, when they all drink the Kool Aide. Truly, who do "orthodox" (with a little o) christians think they are for thinking Chick is unorthodox?I guess I owe you money now.
When I speak of orthodox Christianity I mean those denominations that teach the essentials of the faith-including those fantastical things you mention-but do not carry many of the trappings of "extra-Christianity." Essentially I am pointing out the old logical rule of the essential fallacy when you point out the peculiarities of one particular denomination.
Pardon my chinese, but what the fuck is "orthodox Christianity" ? If you mean traditional Christianity, then what does Jack Chick NOT have to do with it ? He would fit perfectly in the Middle Ages.
"denominations that teach the essentials of the faith"Which denomination would that be ? Yours ?
I never mentioned my denomination.
But those essentials are just as woo-woo as Jack Chick. I could just rereat my last post, but there are no christian sects that don't teach things that are just as unorthodox as anything Jack Chick ever said. Unorthodox like the divinity of Jesus Christ and his being man's savior from sin. Those are essentials--essentially woo-woo. If I could ever find one sect of christianity that taught anything that was not crazy and unorthodox, I would certainly not have christianity, and it wouldn't have to come from scripture.I'm reminded of Scientology: the stars get their religion pared down of the "really crazy shit" so that they will remain spokespersons. Yet they still go insane. Go figure.I suppose you can break shit down to its essentials, but it would still come from an asshole.
I'm glad I came back because what you said is truly illuminating. Say those sort of things to a stranger on the street. It's amazing how this medium allows for people to hide behind a post.
Christian orthodoxy is merely the working consensus of a committee that got put together by the Emperor Constantine in the 4th century in order to give the tottering Roman Empire a stable state religion. Before that time, there was no unity to the faith -- Gnostics, Montanists, Arianists, Manichaeans, and Pauline Christians all contended amongst each other for supremecy. There is no way to tell which of these groups came closest to the teachings of Jesus, because Jesus left us nothing to read. Additionally, as Alleee has pointed out, Jesus was probably crazy anyway -- although it would be kinder to think that the craziest aspects of the Christian religion are the work of his credulous admirers in the decades after his death. Who can say?Christianity forms an easy comparison with Marxism. Imagine if all of the original works of Marx had been lost -- Das Kapital, Grundrisse, La Misère de la Philosophie, all consigned to the flames. (Not such a big loss, you might say.) Now imagine the difficulty of disentangling the "true" and "orthodox" core of Marxist teaching if all we had to go on were the epistles of Engels, the denunciations of Bakunin, the agitprop of Lenin & Trotsky, the speeches of Stalin, the quotations of Chairman Mao, and the hairdos of Kim Jong Il. It would be a hopeless mess. Most Marxists spent most of their arguing and sometimes killing each other over the "correct" interpretation of the Marxian gospel. Both Marxists and Christians made rapid and violent transitions from persecuted sects to state-run orthodoxies. The difference is that with Marx we do have the original works and ideas, and we can see very plainly their confused and crappy nature. With Jesus, we can always keep guessing and reinterpretating to our hearts' content.This is a real advantage for Christianity, I think. Mormonism, Scientology, and other latter-day cults are weighed down by the fact that their founders lived in historical times, and can be easily seen as a bunch of lunatics and/or shysters. Even still, Mormonism has been branching off into endless little churches, both liberal and fundamentalist, ever since the "discovery" of the golden plates a scant 170 years ago. Even Scientology, that litigious and hive-minded cult, has split up into the "orthodox" church and the "Freezoner" freelance crazies. You can't stop the fire.
Digibrill said:"I'm glad I came back because what you said is truly illuminating. Say those sort of things to a stranger on the street. It's amazing how this medium allows for people to hide behind a post."If you said them to me, I would agree with you. I'm sure that I'm not the stranger you had in mind though. So tell me, how is your stranger any different from those brainwashed assholes in Tehran that would do me, or you, serious harm for speaking our minds? Your "orthodox" Christianity likes to distance itself from the likes of Chick, and Jim Jones, and the closet Nazis that hide behind religion, and the "lone wolf(s)" that murders MDs that perform abortions, and the priests that sodomize children, but they are all a product of your doctrine, not mine. That statement of yours threatens and condones third-party violence. In other words, you would, as a good Christian, gloat at our misfortune but feel no responsibility because you did not directly instigate it. When you accuse us of hiding behind pseudonyms, how is that any different from early Christians that hid out in the catacombs of Rome? "Hide not your light under a bushell...", but a few tons of rock are OK if the Romans are out to get you? Brother, please! I protect my identity because I am well aware that "Bubba" is out there with his shotgun, a product of the screwed-up "education" he got from the likes of you.
So there is no defense for a liberal or a moderate christianity: remember: you can pretend to be a christian that doesn't believe in the "bad things in the bible," but you would still be worshipping someone who does.If you had read more of my blog, my other websites, or listened to my show, you would notice that I give out my phone number several times a week. That's not what I would call hiding.Love,Alison Faye RandallMontreal, Quebec(514) 356-1801
Well, the craziest aspects of the religion...hmm...there are plenty of crazy things in the bible. Bats are birds, Jesus turned zombies against his enemies, a striped stick changed the genes of sheep, a god hid a magical evil tree in a garden that would corrupt mankind in order to test them so he could kill them all later, angels mate with human women and make giants, a murderous strongman has strong in his hair and is lauded for his murders, rainbows suddenly show up when there were none before, ...I would say the crazy just keeps going on and on.
Listen, Francois, Alleee, et al. I am working right now and will respond to your posts when I get off. And I did not mean hiding as in hiding behind an online name, but was making a comment about the treatment of visitors-who are strangers-with profanity and personal attacks. And I do mean personal attacks since I was called an a*hole who spreads sh*t.
In fact, if you really wish, you can e-mail me where I use my real name and I will respond as I am able. I do not post my real name as I do not wish my employer to find out about my blog, for personal and professional reasons.
Digi-Bril:You made a knee-jerk assumption. I did not call you an asshole that spreads shit. Although, there is an old adage: "when you assume..." etc etc etc.I was calling Christianity shit, not you, silly willy. It was an analogy.The asshole, well, there are many assholes responsible for Christianity. We can name some of them--Paul, certain priests, etc. We don`t think that our beliefs own us. Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt. So, no you see, no personal attacks. Is everything ok now?
"I suppose you can break shit down to its essentials, but it would still come from an asshole."This can be read either way, and I am always aware of dual meaning.
It seems a pasttime of Christians is to refuse to read proper English and reinterpret everything they see. They sure do it with the Bible. If you don't understand simple maxims or analogies, then you shouldn't try to communicate at a conversational level.
That didn`t sound like a mea culpa.I absolutely said that christianity is shit and shit comes from an asshole. You assunmed that you were the asshole--so does that mean you think that christianity comes from you? You are the originator of christianity? I have to do this, sorry.Shit comes out of an asshole. Maybe I'm too young, but I've never heard of butts spreading their shit; just depositing it. Anyway, back on topic, I was speaking about Christianity being shit, whether you remove what some people, I guess think is unecessary details of the religion, it's still shit. You can tear out all the pages of the bible but the verses that say "love thy neighbor" and "for God so loved the world," and it would still be shit. But if you think that's your doing, then you're as crazy as the assholes that originated the Church. You misinterpreted me, your anger is misplaced, enjoy writing about it in your blog. I hope your reader(s) enjoy our plays.
If you don't see any good in those two verses then there's no point to continuing this conversation.
You think sending 80% or more of the world to eternal suffering and the rest to eternal submission is such a "good" idea that you won't talk to us if we don't acknowledge it ? You are a sick puppy AND a coward.
>>"love thy neighbor" and "for God so loved the world"Francois, I took this to mean just those parts of the verse, not the whole things, which made me wonder why someone would say such a thing. So, if you still want to discuss, I will.
Let me actually ask you the first questions. Where are these verses about zombies and bats?
"Francois, I took this to mean just those parts of the verse, not the whole things, which made me wonder why someone would say such a thing."So now you admit openly to taking the verse OUT OF CONTEXT, something that we get accused of all the time, and you think that flies now ? No no no, coward, I'm not letting you get away with it. DO you support the eternal torture of 80% of the human population yes or no ?"Let me actually ask you the first questions. Where are these verses about zombies and bats? "So not only do you take the Bible out of context, but you don't even READ it !BATS ARE BIRDS :Leviticus11:13And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, (...)11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.JESUS RELEASING ZOMBIES :Matthew 27:51-5351At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
Thank you for the verses.I didn't mean to take the verses out of context, I just didn't read carefully when Allee said the verses that "begin with..."And I don't think those were actually zombies, they were the dead coming back to life. Zombies are the "undead."And I don't see what is the problem with the birds verse.
Actually she didn't say the verses that begin with, did she? So my misunderstanding has some place.
Oh, I forgot to answer your question about judgment. Even though I did not bring it up and though you already know Christian doctrine from what I can tell, here's the drill:1)You have to believe in God first2)You have to believe that this God is just.If you don't believe in ultimate justice then I would say that that is not a moral standpoint, not the fact that Jesus preached justice.
It is impossible to believe in ultimate justice and also believe that "justice" or "morality" is defined by the dictate of a conscious entity. By definition, those cannot be "ultimate"The only objective and ultimate morality or justice possible is one that does not come from the desires of a conscious entity, but rather from the recognizance of natural law and the reality that we exist in.
Post a Comment