|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How New Testament Fundi Christians Bless Atheists, Roman Catholics And Others | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
ringo writes: Buzsaw writes:
Read what I wrote:
In Jesus's day? No. quote: AFTER the New Testament Fundie Christians had failed to take care of the poor for centuries, government stepped in only in the past few generations. Don't pretend that that's a bad thing.
Buzsaw writes:
I gave you examples of groups of people who left your "fundie nation" to find more freedom in our "Catholic nation". Christian fundi nations have faired better by and large with more freedom and prosperity etc. Two bare assertions, Ringo. How about some evidence. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. No? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Coragyps writes: I'm not denying that non-fundi groups do not help these days. I'm talking by and large, historically. Then, again, you are talking out your ass. The NON-fundy churches were the ones, in the United States for sure, that did the bulk of the charity work back before Franklin Roosevelt. You hardly ever see "St. Vitus's Pentecostal Holiness Hospital." Methodist? Yup. Presbyterian? Check. Catholic? Lots of 'em. You are Making Stuff Up, Buz. Where's your evidence for those assertions, Coragyps? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Matthew 5:42 writes: Sometimes I wonder if this means more than just the church and, if so, if I am expected to literally give to all who ask. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Is there any indication that this doesn't mean 'more than just the church'? Why would you assume Jesus is only asking that you give to fellow church members? Reading on:
quote: Certainly the ones to whom Jesus' followers are to give and the ones for whom they are to pray cannot be a group restricted only to fellow members of his followingthe 'church', unless you wish to interpret Jesus as implying that fellow members will be 'those who persecute you'. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
What I've done is question your assertions. Two bare assertions, Ringo. How about some evidence. Jesus told his followers two thousand years ago to feed the hungry. Why would governments be doing it today if the fundies were already doing it? And why would United Empire Loyalists, fugitive slaves and war resisters come to Canada if the U.S. was such a fundie paradise? How about some answers? Edited by ringo, : Spellingg. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Ringo writes: And why would United Empire Loyalists, fugitive slaves and war resisters come to Canada if the U.S. was such a fundie paradise? Have any jobs for those seeking to turn knowledge into wisdom? "Hell is Texas" is one of the three movies filmed here, other than The first few minutes of Midnight Cowboy and then Hangar 18. Appropriate title, as all here are trapped in ignorant redneck hell, admitting it or not. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Hi Frako,
and more radical wives of the quoran where adopted I think you mean 'more radical ideas of the Quoran'. 'Wives' are married to husbands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Back then [...] they received significant oil royalties. Maybe I'm missing something. Is it wrong to profit from owning land where there's oil? Or is it only wrong for Native Americans but not for white Texans?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Untrue Buz, I ask for evidence.
And you never provide the evidence. How do "New Testament Fundi Christians Bless Atheists, Roman Catholics And Others"? Evidence Buz, where is the evidence? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The difference is that Jesus's sharing agenda had nothing to do with government, nor was it obligatory. It was totally voluntary and applied only to individuals, his little group of apostles and later to churches. But today you do work and vote to make Christian morals obligatory. Except communism. Jesus's don't-be-a-prostitute agenda had nothing to do with government, nor was it obligatory. It was merely a voluntary condition to be a follower of Jesus and (later) a member of the Apostles' Church. Nowadays a good Christian will of course vote to make it illegal. But of course he won't vote to make communism compulsory. Indeed, he will not voluntarily turn his own church into a communist society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
He then continues on: "let's remember that the secular left is not immune to errors of historical thinking. While evangelicals misinterpret the references to God in the words of the Founding Fathers, their critics simply have no idea what to make of those same quotations. Since they can't fathom why people today would make religious faith an essential part of their everyday lives ... Wow, that's a broad brush. And an enormous straw man. But I thought that you were yourself a member of the secular left, or at least member of the secular more-left-than-Buzsaw. As such, as the guy who used to post here as Nemesis Juggernaut, you must know very well why the thing you quoted is nonsense. It's not that we "have no idea what to make of those same quotations", and it's not that we "can't fathom why people today would make religious faith an essential part of their everyday lives". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Where's your evidence for those assertions, Coragyps? In the telephone book. Yellowpages.com would also work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
He then continues on: "let's remember that the secular left is not immune to errors of historical thinking. While evangelicals misinterpret the references to God in the words of the Founding Fathers, their critics simply have no idea what to make of those same quotations. Since they can't fathom why people today would make religious faith an essential part of their everyday lives ... quote: I'm secular, not a leftist.
As such, as the guy who used to post here as Nemesis Juggernaut, you must know very well why the thing you quoted is nonsense. It's not that we "have no idea what to make of those same quotations", and it's not that we "can't fathom why people today would make religious faith an essential part of their everyday lives". It's obviously a reference to those who cannot differentiate or those who refuse to. Obviously not all Christians could be roundly indicted in the first portion of the quote, just as not all secularists could be compartmentalized in the latter portion of the quote. It's a generalization of the extremes. If that does not encompass you then it should be of no consequence to you. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm secular, not a leftist. Well, stop me if I'm wrong, but I thought that you were to the left of, for example, Buzsaw. I don't call myself a "leftist", but I bet he would.
It's obviously a reference to those who cannot differentiate or those who refuse to. No it isn't. It says that "the secular left" don't understand this. Suppose that I said that "the religious right" don't understand why priests shouldn't sodomize choirboys. Then you call me on this, and I say "It's obviously a reference to those who cannot differentiate or those who refuse to". But that is not an excuse for a generalization. If I say: "Such-and-such a thing is true of this group" and then when I'm called on this say: "oh, except the exceptions", then what does this tell you except that I am a lazy stupid bigot? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If that does not encompass you then it should be of no consequence to you. This is probably the stupidest argument on the whole internet. If someone says that Jews eat babies in their secret religious rituals, then if I am a Jew and I do not eat babies, then according to you there is no reason why I should protest. It "should be of no consequence to me". Therefore, I cannot legitimately protest against any libel against the group that I belong to, because it should be "of no consequence to me" if it was false. I would only have a reason to protest against it if it was true. Ony a Jew who eats babies should be concerned enough to say: "Jews don't eat babies". The only good reason I'd have to point out that I don't fit your stereotype is if I actually do. Wow, you've got me coming and going. Either that or you're an idiot. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
dr.adequate writes: Um...isn't that going a bit too far? I don't see how being a communist nation would benefit my lot in life, nor that of my church. In fact, whom would it benefit?? Nowadays a good Christian will of course vote to make it illegal. But of course he won't vote to make communism compulsory. Indeed, he will not voluntarily turn his own church into a communist society. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024