|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Politcally Correct Christ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Quite right. My apologies to Ringo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Hey Robin, Have you read "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis? Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
has robin really read anything about christian beliefs and viewpoints? I read something about Christ dying for the sins of mankind. But then if one is "God-inspired," which I am not, one can apparently interpret any Biblical passage any way one feels like. This we call "modernization."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
My point was that religion is subjective and no one shares the same views on the same subject or there would be one religion and no one would argue over this. I'm talking about what it says in a book. To my mind, there's a lot about Christ dying for our sins in the Bible, but Jar and Ringo find it plausible to reject that idea, apparently thinking that they can just interpret a passage any way they care to to make it fit with their modern beliefs. That doesn't sound very legitimate to me.
the fact that you don't bother to learn what people believe falls on your head not someone elses, just like its mine to know it too, as always you can't paint everyone with the same brush I don't know what you are referring to exactly, but if you are talking about Ringo's beliefs, I'm going to assume that he believes what Jar believes since he won't tell me straight out. I know exactly what Jar believes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
i was saying that you could go look at ringos posts instead of badgering him about what he believes in total, since it seems you want to dissect his views on everything I thought dissecting views was what we did here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Robin is a Christian, you seem to be about the only one here doesn't know that. Uh, no, but this politically correct version of Christianity just bores me no end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
If you look closely in the upper right-hand corner of your browser, there's a little "X" that will relieve your boredom I prefer to attack the sources of boredom rather than ignore them. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Is nihilism interesting? Yes, in that it has the savor of reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I assume it must be the map, for the territory so plotted seems only to offer boredom. Parts of reality are very interesting.
does your attraction to Christ (in so far as you are attracted to him) lie in a reading that sees him as non PC, anti-establishment, counter-culture, revolutionary I find many of Christ's sayings attractive in a literary sense. His "anti-establishment" side doesn't interest me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
So why does it bother you so much if you aren't a Christian? Its sentimentality irritates me. The next thing you know they will be turning Ecclesiastes into a diatribe against public apathy. It's a cultural plague.
But, if you aren't a Christian, how do you know this is a PC version of Christianity isn't the true version? I'm not sure what you mean by "true version," but you are the one who convincingly argued some time ago that Jar's religion cannot be called "Christianity." I'm just agreeing with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
However, I do get a chuckle at the Christians fighting amongst themselves about who is a Christian and who isn't, it just confirms that I made the correct decision to walk away from this joke of a religion. Brian says this, but I have my doubts. I think he might be a Christian. Why else would he study the history of Christianity and why else would he argue with Jar about whether or not Jar's religion could be labelled Christianity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Literary sense! Literary sense!! I give up.... Well, from a moral standpoint, these generalized abstract rules such as "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" don't make much sense to me. For one, I don't think it's possible and two, I'm not even sure it's desirable. It doesn't seem to apply to real life as I know it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
You know the law, whether summed up in two Great Commandments or in its expanded whole, is not given that it may be followed by all as some moral guide. That's the problem with the morality of the New Testament. You asked me what I found attractive about Christ and I was telling you that his moral lessons didn't mean much to me. The morality of the gospels is not something conceivable to me. I do well to love a select few and I certainly don't love them as I love myself, and I'll tell you why. Everyone ultimately remains a bit of a stranger to all others. There is an unknown part and separateness in all others that can never be completely pierced. Even with those we are very close to, we make sometimes prepared speeches. We speculate on what they will think of something that we plan to say or do. That's because we don't know for certain, even if we've been very close to them for many years. So the injunction of the Great Commandment is so abstract as to be meaningless. There are 3 parts of the Gospels that we might be attracted to: (1)the moral part (2)the religious part and (3) the literary part. The religious part--that which deals with the supernatural--I don't relate to because I have never experienced anything supernatural. The moral part I don't relate to for reasons given above. That leaves the literary part. To merely dismiss this aspect as frivolous is to make a mistake. ABE: To appreciate the Gospels or any other text from a literary point of view is not going to lead one to any sort of religious belief nor to some moral code that one might follow, but it still might have importance in one's life. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Do you go around looking at all faiths and examine their denominations to see which versions irritate you? Yes. It's a hobby of mine.
While I would say that Jar has a great deal of Christian values, there are just too many of his beliefs that I personally have difficulty in harmonising with the Bible. I think he ignores much of what the Bible says, but that's the problem when interpretation of scripture became popular, it allowed for anything to be called Christianity. Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with you pointing that out, as in fact you have pointed it out in Jar's case. There's nothing wrong with somebody--such as yourself as historian and myself more amateurishly--pointing out that a particular interpretation of a Biblical text is implausible. It doesn't matter if we are believers or not.
But so what if people are turning it into a PC faith, who cares apart from someone involved? Because it leads to a sentimentalization of culture generally, not just the culture of people who are professed Christians. It leads to a lack of regard about correct interpretation of old documents, as though somebody had the moral right, according to PC morals, to read into a text meanings that are very likely not there, and to proclaim, "I have the right to do this; my interpretation is just as good as yours." It's a disregard of facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I don't study the history of Christianity. Well, you talk like you're an authority on the matter.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024