Is it possible for a liberal to be a Christian?
Offline IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A LIBERAL TO BE A CHRISTIAN?
Absolutely not. Consistently liberalism is Atheism. Now of course, they can be part of a liberal church that claims that they are Christian in order to justify their conscious from their sins. "Churches" like Episcopalians, United Methodists, Crystal Cathedral, etc. But they are extremely inconsistent and are not Christians, they are pagans.
Remember in the 2008 election, when American called the democrats on their virtues. The democrats got stuck. Many of them attacked people that asked about virtues, and then they either made some up, or stole them from the Christians in the GOP. It was very amazing and funny how they did that.
Because consistently, Liberals have no values, morals, or ethics. They have no truth, and hate the truth. They want to run the government, so that it will both justify and allow for the rights of the wicked to do their wicked things.
Now look, a democrat can be a Christian, but this is DESPITE being a democrat, not because of it. This would mean that the democrat is an inconsistent democrat. ALL consistent democrats are pagans, hate God, and evil to the bone.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
- Login to post comments
I am going to ignore some of the fluff here, because it is tiring and there is no reason to address it.
Will you (Jean) please define your sense of "Liberal." Because so far you have not shown us your logical process. Show me what a liberal is, and then tell me why a liberal can't be a Christian (or vice versa).
Be as you wish to seem ~Socrates
Point me in the direction of the construction worker reference in Joseethru. I can't find any mention of his earthly vocation in my deeply boring copy of jewish wars.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
It's funny... everytime someone claims to be a "rational believer" at RRS, they almost immediately prove that they are anything but that.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
nvm.
That very request is left unanswered in at least two other threads. It appears "liberal" is an ad hominem used to ignore data, concepts, or questions from sources disliked by Jean. Rather than address discomfiting concepts or data, Jean simply calls it "liberal," and moves on.
Good luck getting a lucid and relevant answer.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Challenge accepted! That is now my ultimate goal in any discussion with Jean, to get "A lucid and relevant answer."
Criteria:
It must clearly be an answer.
It must be accepted by many (not me or Jean) as both lucid and relevant.
Agreed?
Be as you wish to seem ~Socrates
I like it. Good luck.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Phoenix. I think all you'll get is an assertion or a bible quote but we'll see...
Hi Rebecca,
The difference between my analysis of atheism being evil and very nasty is based on logical analysis of the atheist worldview (that SOME claim they don't have). However, you once again emotionally reacted to my argument. So while you are discussing things in the area of absurdity, I am discussing things in the are of sound reason and logic. After all, as a Christian I am of the rational response squad, while you are of the absurd response squad, that's the difference.
I know I have offended you, but that's because atheists like yourself tend not to be use to the truth. You have been in a delusion so long regarding the death of truth, that when somebody actually shows you the truth, you panic. I understand this.
If I am wrong, emotional reactions like that are just icing on the cake. It demonstrates my argument. Next time relax, breath, and argue with me and try to refute me via logic that I'm wrong. Even though you can't since it's the truth, try.
_____________________
Hi HarleySportster
I don't define Christianity in the negation but via the object of the thesis. The death burial resurrection of the Biblical Jesus via the 3 essential areas of Authority, God, and Method of Salvation. But I would also say that Liberalism by definition is antithetical to Christianity (a consistent liberal).
The Presbyterian church is not pagan. However some are. Specifically the ones of U.S. USA. and so fourth. The consistent ones via the Westminster Confession of 1646-47 are orthodox. The Methodists are also orthodox, just not the United Methodists since they INCONSISTENT METHODISTS.
Again, I like the Baptists. There are SOME pagan baptists, but the consistent ones are good.
Presbyerian PCA, OCA, most Reformed Baptists, etc. But remember, they don't have to be a Calvinists since that is a non-essential issue, The essential issues are in the ares of authority, Who is God, and Method of Salvation.
Calvinism is an emphasis on the Sovereignty of God. But a Christian can still have pagan ideas in their head and still be Christian. Not all pagan ideas, but some.
I think the Puritans were wrong regarding the burning, but I understand why they did it from a historical point of view. Though at the same time, if witchcraft was an offense of the "state" at the time, and the "witches" violated the law, then they deserved to be burned. There are laws in America I don't like, but I suffer the consequence if I break them. Same thing with the witches.
I've actually studied witchcraft and the occult for over 20 years. As a means to help witches and occultists. I have met some strange people over the years.
That is correct, that notion that I am a Christian and you are an atheist was all determined before the foundation of the world. Since you are an atheist via empiricism, you do not know what cruel is. You do not have a normative to judge what is and not cruel. Also, you don't know what is good, or bad. You don't know anything.
So, the question you asked was made via you stepping over on my side of things, for you to even answer the question.
Romans 9, the whole chapter addresses this. It's a good chapter. But the clay has not say regarding the potter. It's the way it is. If you are concerned about this, then you may be elect, but if you are not, you are probably reprobate.
___________
Hey Extremeist,
My books are packed away. But here's something I do have via my knowledge of Greek Jesus was a “tekton” in Capernaum. The word “tekton” is literally translated “construction worker.” The reason that our Bibles tell us that Jesus was a carpenter has to do with the Western definition of a construction worker.
Early Western translators, like the rest of Western society, called a “construction worker” a “carpenter.” This is because, in the Western world, construction workers were most often wood workers or carpenters. But, more than likely, because of the valuable need for basalt food processing tools in Israel, any “tekton,” in Capernaum, including Jesus, would have plied the common trade of a “stone cutter” or “brick mason.”
So look up that word via a Greek Lexicon. I doubt anybody in your family will have one since they are Charismatic, but you can ask.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Heh.
I don't think it was your "argument" she reacted to, since you didn't have any, which you now will admit :
There you go. You offended someone and they reacted ? Whatever next, eh ?
Sweetie, it's an internet forum. People type, and you can't see them. Okay ?
You're self-refuting. That's why we're keeping you talking.
Define consistency and how one Methodist or other denomination is consistent and the other is not. Define what pagan ideas are acceptable and which are not and how that distinction is drawn if you don't mind.
So, the law is always right, even when it is wrong? Is that what you are saying ? If there is no evidence that the witches of Salem actually broke the law, and was tried and hanged for supernatural and unfounded evidence that had no basis in reason, you are saying that it is still just if I understand you is that correct ?
NOW, at the bottom of your argument, you are saying that I have no notion of what is right and what is wrong, because I do not use God as a moral compass is that right ? Hmm, the Pagan religions that pre-dated Christianity had laws that were quite similiar to the ones formulated by the Christians. How do you account for those ?
Riddle me this, the Ten Commandments does not say anything about slavery, rape, spousal abuse, molesting children, bigamy or polygamy. Does that mean that God does not care about such things ? Would that imply that God, since he used the First three commandments to reference worshipping him, would that imply that God was more concerned with his own need for veneration than he was the behavior of people ? Plus, why did God command the murder of so many people, if murder is a sin ? Does the Ten Commandments apply only to his followers and everyone else is target practice ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Hello Mr. I am right and everyone else is wrong,
If you think that anything you have to say holds any meaning to me at all, think again. Truth be told, I can say the same things about you that you say about me. You obviously didn't come here to learn anything about an atheists view since you already know everything about it.
So what if I am emotional, angry, or whatever? You get pretty emotional in explaining your delusions about your god. You're highly emotional in the sense that you just can't believe that anyone could reject christ. I am angry and do tend to show my emotion when the bible is shoved down my throat and I'm told I am ignorant because I don't believe in god.
It sickens me to the core because I can't understand why someone would except that there is a god and even if there was that he was right in all the wrong he did. My view of this god is that he is a sick fuck. Now I can deal with christians but not the ones who try to tell me they are better than me because I don't believe in a bullshit story like they do.
I get really angry when they make me out to be evil or satanist just because I don't have their beliefs. Especialy the ones like you that don't even know me personally. That's called make assumptions and it really bleeds of stupidity. There's no logic in that at all.
Make no mistake Jean, you don't offend me or scare me in any shape, fashion or form. You are an irritant and people like you are the core reason that I don't buy into your delusion. We can "argue" all you like but understand that I won't be swayed. I will not surrender to "christ" and it will upset you. This I know because I've seen it many times.
Continue on with your holier than thou attitude, I could care less. Continue trying to belittle atheists as much as you like. Be warned though, this one bites back.
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
Get'em, bite'em. I'll hold him down for ya :D Very well said, I so concur with a lot of what you said even though I am a believer in God just my view is different than most.
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand
Jesus was opposed to the death penalty. Matt 5:21
He didn't believe in strict enforcement of law, even religious law. Mrk2:27, John 8:7, Matt 7:1-2
He was critical of public prayer. Matt 6:6-7
He favored separation of church and state. Matt 22:21
He was opposed to retaliation and would oppose the war on terror. Matt 5:9, 5:39, 5:54.
OMFG! Jesus was a liberal! It all makes sense now. Jean hates Jesus, and as we atheists practice more of Jesus' teachings more than do Christians, he hates us by default.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
So atheists can't know what is right, whereas you can? Explain that. Define liberal. Define right. Define KNOW. And give us logic.
Clearly we evil, unlucky heathens are unworthy to see the logic behind Jean's arguments. That is why he does not show us any logic, because (as infallibly intelligent as he is, believing in magic-sky-daddy and his zombie son and all) his logic is too far beyond ours. I mean, clearly he knows what he is talking about. Look at how many times he uses the word "consistent!" He must be logical if he knows what that word means. And also look at how he always says "Respectfully" at the end of his posts. That really lends him credibility, seeing as how lying is a sin and all. Which of course, is so very consistent of that oh-so respectful man.
I am sorry if that comes off a little hostile, but you keep making claims without any support whatsoever. How is it that us "Pagan's" Cannot know? Explain this to me, please, as my inferior intellect just can't wrap its tiny little self around a concept as vastly stupid as that.
Be as you wish to seem ~Socrates
Roflmao.
Be as you wish to seem ~Socrates
I am reminded of the South Park Easter special where Bill Donahue says to Jesus "Why won't you go away?". It must be rough going through life pretending to follow the teachings of someone while consistently ignoring everything the person said. No wonder the guy avoids questions. He has to keep his head buried in the sand in order to keep from confronting his own contradictions of faith. Oh well, what are we to do? I suppose that in keeping with the teachings of the first liberal, Jesus, we should follow his advice and turn the other cheek to Jean's sophomoric insults and chronic neuro-myopia.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Hi Anony,
When did I admit I did not have an argument? This is incoherent. I do not know if you have a question, or if you are smoking something. And I'm not talking about Salmon.
___________
Hi HarleySportster,
By consistency I am talking about an attribute of a logical system that is so constituted that none of the propositions deducible from the axioms contradict one another. Thus the argument itself is valid, and flows via argument itself. An inconsistent argument is thus invalid.
So a Consistent let's say Roman Catholic, lets say, would hold to the OFFICIAL teachings of their church consistently as how it is presented to them either via assertion or argument. If they do not follow the teachings of their system, they are inconsistent and break the chain of that system as required to be of that system in the essential parts or to not break the system via non-essential parts.
The law is not always right. But the law is to be obeyed. If they are not to do witchcraft, and they do, then the burning of the witch is justified since they broke the standard of the state. They could have moved. I don't think some laws are right but I follow them to avoid the consequence of the law. The withes did not do that (many of them).
I believe there is evidence that many witches broke the law. Perhaps some were innocent, but not all.
I actually am not saying that you cannot have morals without God. Even though I think that, I have yet to argue that. I am arguing via atheistic empiricism, that YOUR system CANNOT logically allow for ethics. Consistent empiricism cannot have ethics anywhere since it is fragmented and is nothing.
Pagan religions predated Christianity? You must avoid the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy when you say that, which you are not avoiding.
Many of those things are mentioned, some general, some specific. Start with one and I will go from there.
____________________
Hi Rebecca
I don't think anything I say holds anything with you. It would only hold with you if the Holy Spirit helps you understand and receive the truth. I don't know if He is doing that or not.
I've been studying atheism for over 20 years. I use to camp out at an atheist church, studied it pretty hardcore. I came to see if an atheist can justify their means of knowing regarding anything. They can't so far., Can you? Can you husband Jimmy Dean?
If you are emotional and angry, that means you are absurd, and not rational. Emotion is antithetical to reason. This is due to you being a woman AND being an atheist, since Christian woman tend to be more logical on average.
There's a different in being passionate when you argue. But you don't argue VIA passion. that's the difference. You were using emotions for argument which is absurd.
I can believe that people can't believe in God. The Bible talks about that and it's common. I am not shoving the Bible down your throat obviously. Perhaps you are elect since you are so emotional. I am asking for an atheistic means of knowing that is not fragmented.
I have given you reasons regarding God. Your emotion is blinding you from understanding reason.
You are extremely evil. The Bible says you are.
I'm not trying to scare you or offend you. Just talk and ask what an atheistic view is of knowing.
I am not holier then thou, because I am still being worked on. Christ came for those who are sick, not for those who are well. He came for people like you.
____________
Hi DESD,
Your verses are taken out of context. And Jesus was not talking about government, but individual Christians, you made a classificational fallacy.
_______________
Hi Phoenix
That's right, atheists are clueless, and Christians KNOW things. I already defined liberal elsewhere. Logic is the study of argument. I already defined know. Actually, you are blind due to your sin, true, I'm glad we agree.
I don't argue via SUPPORT, that empirical and inductive. I argue via DEMONSTRATION that is dogmatic and deductive.
_________________
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Hi DASD
Yes, but not specifically. The Zohan elaborates. This is all we hear about Lilith in the Talmud, things like this:
I have the Talmud and have read it. Thus the specifics are hot air.
And the Talmud itself is hot air.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Please demonstrate how they are out of context as soon as you finish eating the fetus and strangling the mother with her intestines. It should also be pointed out that there is no government without individual people. It also bears mentioning that 'render onto Caesar' is directly related to government. Yeshua was telling them to pay their taxes. This would be the earliest example of suggesting separation of church and state that I can think of. Damn that liberal Jewish troublemaker, hey? <snickers>
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
How is "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" taken out of context?
How is "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" out of context when it directly pertains to the Biblical law against work on the Sabbath not being as important as ones deeds?
How is "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." out of context when it is plainly saying that they lack the moral high ground to persecute anyone?
How can "Judge not, that ye be not judged." be out of context?
How can"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." be taken out of context when it obviously says that Jesus was opposed to public prayer?
How is "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God" taken out of context when it sounds like something straight out of a liberal's mouth?
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." is out of context?
"
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" I guess that liberal quote is out of contest too.
It looks like everything Yeshua said was out of context, at least from a Xtian point of view, seeing as they don't follow any of his teachings anyhow. Ohhh, if only that damned Jew Jesus would get out of the picture, we Christians could really set this world straight! How dare that bastard contradict our bigotry, hey Jean?
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
More of a pot calling a kettle "black". In other words, unless "Christians" believe exactly as Jean Chauvin they are not truly Christian, rather they are pagan....
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
The neverending stream of assertions, strawmen, insults, inadvertently hilarious condescension, and non-sequiturs was my first clue
No, but the following quote most certainly is :
See, that's what I mean. You're completely self-refuting.
Wel, I asked you the same question twice in your threads, but that was obviously a waste of time.
Ok, this must be a Poe. No one can be stupid enough to mean "atheist church" seriously.
Lol, as far as I know, there are only a few atheists 'churches,' and all of them are being satirical to some extent.
I don't think he's a Poe; he's probably just exhibiting out-group homogeneity bias as usual. By "atheist church," he might mean a unitarian church or a university. Or...he's delusional enough for his beliefs to create false memories.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Jean, we were discussing the origins of the New Testament canon for both the RCC and Protestant churches. It just so happens that Ebon Musings has a recently-made page about the history of Christianity and the biblical canon, so you (and everyone else here, for the sake of interest) might want to take a look at it: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/originsoforthodoxy.html
"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972
Now why Jean would you just want to talk and to find out an atheists view of knowing when you've got me pegged down as evil? I know I'm not evil but you do. Do you see what I do in my everyday life? Do you see ke take care of my children? Do you know one of them is disabled? If I was evil, wouldn't I have let him die instead if fighting for his life. You're a jerk for telling me I'm evil because the bible says so. Obviously your god didn't take into account the people like me.
No I'm evil in gods eyes lol and yours. You don't know me. You don't know what I've been through either but you know I'm evil. You want to know what evil is? You.
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
Hello DESD,
Your ad hominems are extremely foolish. You are responsible for your own choices. Thus it is your that will be accountable for voting in bills that merit the right to suck the brains out of a fetus head to remove the baby after the third trimester.
You evil is the result of Original Sin, and you can only escape it via Jesus Christ. We are not to use our own empirical non wisdom, but the only wisdom "existent." that being the Wisdom of Christ (Col 2:3).
So when you have an argument, I will respond.
__________________
Hi DESD,
Since you are less then a student regarding the Bible, it is no wonder why you have so many problem with your logical fallacies and contradictions.
The understanding of kill is not exhaustive of all types of killings. For just a chapter later capital punishment is at play. For this, look up the word Ratsach in a Hebrew Lexicon and STUDY. lol.
Not sure your question about the stones.
The Judge not favorite verse for homosexuals is taken out of context because they only read Matthew 7:1. The context is talking about a MOTIVE of judgment. We are not to judge HYPOCRITICALLY. Not judge at all. John 7:24 says to make a righteous judgment, we shall know them by their fruits (Galatians 5:21-22), Test all things (I THess 5:21), and judge ourselves (II Cor 13:5).
So hypocrites are not to judge since they will be judged worse. Biblical Christian via obedience with God are to judge via the Bible alone.
lol, Jesus was no opposed to public prayer, for the Lord's prayer His Apostles saw. He again was talking about those who do this for attention. To say He was against Public Prayer is a logical fallacy and very very funny.
The Greek word for peace Eirhnh via recent archeological finds is the same word that was on Caesar's Crown via war. So the term that was understood was not a homosexual type of peace, but peace via war. The Greek world at the time understood this.
The other cheek is regarding evangelism.
Enemies was within the camp of Israel since it is an O.T. quote
You sure have a lot of questions for an atheist. I don't have time to go through all of them in the future for that would take hours. I can give you my phone number and you can call me and I can help you if you like since you are very confused via logic.
_____________________
Hi UBUNTU,
Unless Christians believes exactly as the Bible tells them to believes, they will go to hell. Since Jean believes what the Bible says, ergo,
____________________
Hi Anony,
I see that you don't know what humor is. Humor is only possible via Christians. Empiricism by definition cannot know humor unless they step out of empiricism.
__________
Hi KSMB
It was in Portland Oregon around 15 years ago and it was called "The Center for Rational Thought." They were across from Powell's Book store. I hung out there all the time. They had sermons and they even passed the plate for people to give money. It was very funny. I was a double agent.
I don't think it's there anymore. It's now an XXX video joint which is really the same thing as an atheist church. Going to hell fast.
______________
Hi Butterbattle,
The Center for Rational Thought was not via satire. I was in with the head guy and he was serious. They were on a mission to evangelize to the found. lol.
______________________________
Hi EL,
I've studied the New Testament Canon and gave you the correct answer. It was a small regional council in Carthage Africa around 397-398 and most likely Augustine was there. It was so that the pagans like yourself would stop trying to trick Christians by adding gnostic garbage in the New Testament. That's the only reason.
_______________
Hi Rebecca,
I've been finding out the atheist way of knowing for a very very long time. You assume that I have not. And I have yet to find an atheist that can show me how knowing is even possible. And if you can't know via atheism, then atheism is making you dumb.
So the only way to not be dumb is to know, and if Christianity is the only way to know, then ergo, you ought to become a Christian.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
How about you Jean?
Jean, you are not a christian because christians can't exist when there is no god. You like to call people dumb too and that's not the so called christiam way. Just because god hasn't spoke to me or answered prayers when I tried to belive in him and so I gave up on it, doesn't make me dumb. It's not my fault you're too dumb to understand these things. Blame your god idc.
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
Well slap me with a theist tag and call me saved. That flawless bit of logic has convinced me. I have been living my life wrong all of these years. It is time for me to become a Christian because I wouldn't want to be dumb. That is worse than being a poopy head.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Which is why he posted in ALLCAPS, made pointless generalizations, and in general flung poo at any individual he disagrees with. The former is why I haven't really bothered with this thread.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I am a theist (or so they labeled me) and I'm a sort of liberal... I don't see any incongruencies
Mixing politics and religion is intelectually naive.
I know half of the world heavily mixes politics with religion but that only means half of the world is stupid. Mixing politics with religion is also unwise given examples in human history.
The world is not America too. Many countries in europe live well with their values, their religions and their politics. Many of these politics are more "liberal" than the democratic US party.
Christians in general swallow the biblical interpertation of the Vatican without question (or so they think). I believe in Jesus profound spiritual message, and I wont go much further than that. I don't believe that he died for our sins in that strict sense.
Politically speaking I have no doubt that this world needs more atheists.
See, that's the thing about Religion, it is so purely subjective, you see a "profound spiritual message" in the account of Jesus, I see the senseless glorification of an ultimately empty 'sacrifice', of a mythical character with a very mixed 'moral' message, others dwell on the very 'died for our sins' thing that you don't quite accept.
There is no way to validate any of the ideas and messages of religion within themselves, each person inevitably reads them in their own personal context.
The only source of actual knowledge is by serious empirical study of what we perceive as reality, beyond the very finite, limited world of our own imagination.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
To follow up on Bobs point more dramatically...
If I had the choice between living on Earth and being crucified to earn a trip to heaven to rule over mankind, I certainly would take the crucification. If someone were to think that me doing so was selfless, I would look at them as a fool.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Exactly
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Yes, it would be the very reverse of a selfless sacrifice, it is a reward for a undergoing a pointless but temporary inconvenience, which actually benefits no-one else.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I would make this deal for Angelina Jolie.
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
But what if you know that your "pointless" sacrifice will be used to convert billions into Christianity and kill millions and millions of people, delay scientific progress, etc. ... and what if you know that you have no choice and God has made this decision for you.
... poor Jesus...
He wasn't moving like he said he was. He was just tired of getting his ass handed back to him all chewed up. If you happen to log back on Jean, except defeat and go on living in your delusions. You haven't even debated much at all, just been a turd.
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
LOL. The Jesus deed for Angelina Jolie sounds awesome to me. Why if you could throw Asia Argento into the mix and I am in Heaven for real. I am not at all interested in 72 virgins, that doesn't sound like my cup of tea. ,
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
All of this is true. Religion is very subjective, it all comes down on what you "feel" from it.
That thing called reality is something we know very little about because it is bounded by the only method we have to rationalize it - empirical study. When we only have one option when aproaching a problem that restricts our proceedings and perceptions. Another thing that limits us is our "own finite, very limited world of our imagination".
When we know so little about something we tend to use intuition and subjective interpertations based on life experiences and "feeling" experiences. All this doesn't forcefully make subjective experiences false. I live perfectly ok as I am. I may be right or I may be wrong. I don't know. In the Human condition we can never reach ultimate Truth and ultimate Reality
The difference between the "Gospels" and "gossip" are number of gullible who market and buy it.
There is no difference between "The Weekly World News" and holy books. Bats don't turn into boys and you wont get 72 virgins and God didn't put his invisible ejaculate into Mary.
I am quite sure there are people crafty enough if they wanted, could build a giant temple to "The Cat In The Hat" and have gullible people dress up as Thing 1 and Thing 2 at an alter and sell it as a "real" religion.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Teralek, have you read John Shelby Spong? You sound a bit like him.
I think as long as you understand that intuition and "feeling" experiences cannot give you anything outside themselves, you are rational. While I think empirical study gives us quite a bit of knowledge about objective reality (and in fact is the only way to gain knowledge of objective reality), there is quite a bit of knowledge concerning "what it means to be human" that is difficult (but not impossible) to plumb empirically, and far easier to intuit (though with the caveat that we could be quite, quite wrong, with no way to know except empirically).
I gather this is the sort of knowledge to which you refer, that is bounded by empiricism?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Did you look at the link I posted, though?
"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972
Interesting article describing jesus as a 'liberal' : http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2010/12/jesus-god-tax-christ-health
Christians account for some of the most Liberal people on the planet. I am not interested in theoretical classifications and that kind of bullshit, but issue-by-issue agreement with Liberal ideas and positions. The simple fact is that many Christians agree with Liberal positions.
I am going to assume that taxing the rich more and cutting defense spending in the US are patently Liberal positions. Here's a fun poll: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7022AK20110103
Last I checked 30%+ of Americans believed that the earth was created no more than 10k years ago. According to this poll, even hard core Christian fundamentalists are OVERWHELMINGLY Liberal in their outlook when you look at actual issues.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
And, most importantly, to make sure Christianity stayed subservient to the Roman Empire. Gnosticism was for freedom in thought and action - can't have that going on, can we?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You have to be INSANE to be a christian so I suppose both liberals and republicans or any party can be insane. However there is a much greater chance a Republican would be a Christian than a liberal!!
Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com
Hello,
I thought I defined it elsewhere for you? It's like when PaPa comes home, the kids always what the prize. I will define it here if I haven't already.
Technically speaking, there is a classicial form of liberalism. This simply emphasized freedom. This is where the term "LIBERTARIAN" uses the same stem word and relays the same emphasis.
John Locke was considered a liberal. But back then, I would have been a liberal. It was for the liberation from slavery and the emphasis of the individual was understood. This was most exemplified in the form of economic Capitalism which was invented by a Christian.
But via the 21st century, usus loquendi has kicked in. Alinski has won the day. Now it is antithetical to it's etymological meaning.
Today, it's for Communism or complete government control (accept when a conservative is in office- hypocrites). It's for a Pluralistic CULTURE. It's for welfare.
Liberalism has a big foot, size 1200. It steps on everybody making everybody poor, and keeping a few rich. It's a deceptive means of wanting the government to be a big candy store. Full of pink gumdrops and blue suckers. In this candy story is no counter, no cashier. Just spoiled kids with holes in their teeth running after the tootsie rolls.
Candy for alll.
And then some people actually went out and worked hard, and had more Sneakers then others. This wasn't fair said the bratty kids. So they asked for a king to divide it out. This king was like the Messiah and was worshipped by the rauncy kids.
We will have equal candy forever and ever and ever and ever. We will always have candy. They are so deceived with their stupidity, the king uses the hard balls to controll them and abuse them.
Soon the candy runs out, and the people get angry. By then it's to late. The king has all the control. The people then become dirt poor and the candy store becomes a third store mall strip.
Liberalism is the death of society. ANYTHING that is Christian, must be faught against. Borders, Universal Language, Protecting Babies from Mothers who murder them, Capitalism, anything at all which is Christian, is then attempted to destroy.
Stop and think about it. EVERYTHING liberal cause, is in defiance to Christianity. Why is that? THINK with your brains. If only possible for God to open your mind.
All liberals will be burning in hell, and then they will have their communisitic government. Only the king won't be Obama, it will be Lucifer. He will enjoy torturing you forever and ever and ever.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).