|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,481 Year: 3,738/9,624 Month: 609/974 Week: 222/276 Day: 62/34 Hour: 1/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How New Testament Fundi Christians Bless Atheists, Roman Catholics And Others | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
Dr Adequate writes: 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? You're missing my point, Dr Adequate. More power to anyone fortunate enough to be entitled to oil royalties. My point was the detrimental effect with those oil royalties (significant) coupled with government welfare payments upon the Native Americans. It did to them what it does to all things government subsidized. It produces more welfare and less personal responsibility for one's family's welfare. Not having to work, the people became idle drunkards, having nothing to do productively and having all kinds of time to carouse, drink, engage in criminal activities etc. That's why a small minority of the Native Americans who made good use of the perks from oil and government and who were industrious as well became very affluent; a few becoming very wealthy. Native Americans on reservations, even today, after becoming evangelized or after overcoming the tendency to be lazy, live the good life, benefiting from the perk advantages they have over young whitey ordinary citizen, struggling to get a start in life financially etc. 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 |
jar writes: Untrue Buz, I ask for evidence. Untrue? Where's your evidence that it's untrue? Most of what you've contributed to this thread are these substance-less repetitive blind assertions. Jar, you remind me of the laughing hyena, following along the herds of wildebeest, nipping incessantly at their heals, hoping eventually to pounce on one one that slips. Edited by Buzsaw, : revise word BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Jar, you remind me of the laughing hyena, following along the herds of wildebeest, nipping incessantly at their heals, hoping eventually to pounce on one one that slips. I don't suppose it has occurred to you that the reason people constantly ask you for evidence is because you never present any. No, why would you think that? Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
The person making the claim that "New Testament Fundi Christians Bless Atheists, Roman Catholics And Others" is the one who is required to provide positive evidence for that claim. Where's your evidence that it's untrue? I'm still waiting for you to explain why several waves of Americans have come to Catholic Canada to escape those "blessings". If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Buzsaw writes: jar writes: Untrue Buz, I ask for evidence. Untrue? Where's your evidence that it's untrue? Most of what you've contributed to this thread are these substance-less repetitive blind assertions. Jar, you remind me of the laughing hyena, following along the herds of wildebeest, nipping incessantly at their heals, hoping eventually to pounce on one one that slips. Let me show you how things work Buz, I am always trying to help you. You said in Message 30 quote: I replied in Message 38.
quote: and even repeated the question? I'll try yet again. How do "New Testament Fundi Christians Bless Atheists, Roman Catholics And Others"? Evidence Buz, where is the evidence? Learn a little basic English Buz, asking questions are not assertions. Claiming that when I ask questions that I am making assertion is simply, yet again, untrue. Again ...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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
ringo writes: Buzsaw writes:
The person making the claim that "New Testament Fundi Christians Bless Atheists, Roman Catholics And Others" is the one who is required to provide positive evidence for that claim. Where's your evidence that it's untrue? I'm still waiting for you to explain why several waves of Americans have come to Catholic Canada to escape those "blessings". I've explained and you are not reading objectively. My OP points were not pertaining to specific exceptions. They pertain to by large historically and globally. By and large, historically, the nation of Canada is one of the nations which has fared better than either Mexico and, perhaps (I say perhaps), even the RC majority province of Quebec. No? If not, please show your evidence. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
Well, stop me if I'm wrong, but I thought that you were to the left of, for example, Buzsaw. Well, yeah, in comparison to Buzsaw, then yes. I tend to lean to the left on social issues, and to the right on fiscal issues.
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. I would assume it was hyperbole for effect and/or humor. Sometimes people say "all" or "every" when they could not possible know that. It's just hyperbole and a mode of speech. I wouldn't get too upset about it.
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. I'm just giving you my interpretation of what I read, and the possible psychology behind it. If an article appears too one-sided, then he runs the risk of alienating people. The bulk of the scorn in the article clearly was directed towards fundamentalists. If it was all directed towards them, they may assume that he's just some liberal blowhard and might immediately dismiss it. But if it appears to be an objective piece, they might be more likely to listen to what he has to say with an open-mind versus immediately dismissing him. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
quote: This is probably the stupidest argument on the whole internet. ..... Okay.......
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". Are you comparing baby-eating Jews to what was written in the article? Look, I gave you my interpretation. You seem to disagree. Fine. What more would you like me to do? It's a disagreement on interpretations, we aren't dealing with hard facts here. We will just have to agree to disagree. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4167 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
This may be a dumb question but, what churches are considered fundamentalist? In my area there are lot of baptist, southern baptist, presbyterian, pentecostal. I have seen where some cite all of these as being fundamentalist??
I am hoping someone can better define this then I have been able to so far. "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
fearandloathing writes: This may be a dumb question but, what churches are considered fundamentalist? In my area there are lot of baptist, southern baptist, presbyterian, pentecostal. I have seen where some cite all of these as being fundamentalist?? I am hoping someone can better define this then I have been able to so far. Wiki is our friend "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4167 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes: fearandloathing writes: This may be a dumb question but, what churches are considered fundamentalist? In my area there are lot of baptist, southern baptist, Presbyterian, pentecostal. I have seen where some cite all of these as being fundamentalist?? I am hoping someone can better define this then I have been able to so far. Wiki is our friend Yes I have looked there and I guess I am dumb becuase it still didn't answer my question. I guess I am missing something, are all protestant churches fundamentalist?? I am not trying to be a smartass, I just want to know, maybe there is a better link or source of info that can enlighten me. Maybe someone can just tell me?? Thanks "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Yes I have looked there and I guess I am dumb becuase it still didn't answer my question. I guess I am missing something, are all protestant churches fundamentalist?? Fundamentalism is more of a personal belief than a denominational belief. Most would say that Lutherans are much less fundamentalist than Nazarenes, but you could find non-fundamentalists and fundamentalists in each congregation. Christian Fundamentalism is a non-denominational movement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4167 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Taq writes: Yes I have looked there and I guess I am dumb becuase it still didn't answer my question. I guess I am missing something, are all protestant churches fundamentalist?? Fundamentalism is more of a personal belief than a denominational belief. Most would say that Lutherans are much less fundamentalist than Nazarenes, but you could find non-fundamentalists and fundamentalists in each congregation. Christian Fundamentalism is a non-denominational movement. Thanks, This is also what I was thinking, but wasn't sure. I cant say for certain,but it seems that fundamental Christianity is a fairly modern term, 20th century. This being said, then some of the things that have been attributed to Fundy's isn't so. Is this a flawed line of thought?? I do see christian protestant churches in my area doing many good things, I cant say if any of them consider themselves fundamentalist, and it doesn't support the topic either way I don't think. Thanks for helping me clear up my lack of understanding. "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I cant say for certain,but it seems that fundamental Christianity is a fairly modern term, 20th century. Since fundamentalism is a rejection of the modernization of christian theology in the 1800's and 1900's it would need to be a recent term.
This being said, then some of the things that have been attributed to Fundy's isn't so. Is this a flawed line of thought??
Yes and no. Modern christian fundamentalism is a movement to return to previous christian "values" found in earlier centuries. While society moves towards legalization of homosexual marriage there are many fundamentalists that would call for a return to laws that put homosexuals in jail (e.g., Oscar Wilde). They want the church to once again have the political influence it had prior to the modern era.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Also, Christianity during the Colonial Period was certainly not monolithic. Christians definitely feared other Christians far more than other religions. The problem faced was just that, the "Founding Fathers" and actually most educated people living in the colonies, knew that the major cause of war and death in Europe over the preceding couple hundred years was driven to a great extent by Christian Sectarianism, MY Church's Way or the Highway.
They were going to make sure that none of the various sects held power, and in particular, the New England Puritans were feared by just about all. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024