Ok, why did this thread all of the sudden become about religion and atheism? This thread is about making fun of a guy who did a stupid thing and the people who believed he was right beyond a shadow of doubt regardless of what potential evidence may have been brought forth to them from whatever source. Seriously, stay on topic or I may have to resort to sterner measures.
Because someone posted a link to a blog where a guy got all aggro about it, I called him on it, and it spiraled out of control from there.
My bad.
Resume the frivolity.
Ok, why did this thread all of the sudden become about religion and atheism?
The main content of this thread has been bashing religion since it started. It just happened to be a narrowly focused segment of religion that most posters didn't feel any sympathy towards.
Now there's a good why question. :)
... gasping sounds...
Well that settles it then.
Ok, why did this thread all of the sudden become about religion and atheism?HITLER!!!
Damn!
|
Ok, why did this thread all of the sudden become about religion and atheism?The main content of this thread has been bashing religion since it started. It just happened to be a narrowly focused segment of religion that most posters didn't feel any sympathy towards.
Now there's a good why question. :)
In order to keep our messageboards friendly and fun, here are some reminders about our policies:
* Do not use profanity or vulgar speech;
* Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements;
* Do not defame, abuse, stalk, harass, or threaten others;
* Do not advocate illegal activities or discuss them with intent to commit them;
* Do not post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party.
Violating any of these rules may result in suspension or permanent removal from our messageboards.
The main content of this thread is the disbelief that one man in a small obscure radio program can have this much media attention for his ignorant comments
The main content of this thread is the disbelief that one man in a small obscure radio program can have this much media attention for his ignorant comments
Not much news about him in Asia.
Ok, why did this thread all of the sudden become about religion and atheism?HITLER!!!
I love it when people spend huge amounts of time and effort debating things they can never know.
It makes me feel warm.
The main content of this thread is the disbelief that one man in a small obscure radio program can have this much media attention for his ignorant comments
Oh I see, the phrasing is at issue. Very well.
I can't believe anybody would be so foolish as to pay any attention to a bunch of schizophrenics who can't get laid pontificate from absolute ignorance about sexuality, deriving their authority from an ancient collection of writings of the mentally unstable. What's wrong with them?
Better? Or is it only ok if the religion is small?
And yes, that's a serious question.
Hee hee!
starts up a jangling group of chords on Lucille
|
The main content of this thread is the disbelief that one man in a small obscure radio program can have this much media attention for his ignorant comments
Oh I see, the phrasing is at issue. Very well.
I can't believe anybody would be so foolish as to pay any attention to a bunch of schizophrenics who can't get laid pontificate from absolute ignorance about sexuality, deriving their authority from an ancient collection of writings of the mentally unstable. What's wrong with them?
Better? Or is it only ok if the religion is small?
And yes, that's a serious question.
You and I both know that if I decided it was hateful or bigoted to bash the religion of the tiny orbiting teapot no serious-minded religious person would come to my defense, I'd be generally ridiculed, and there would be absolutely no understanding from anyone on the boards that I felt the tone of anyone else was hateful or bigoted. Said much better by others, mass delusion is sane, micro delusion is just delusion.
A: yes, it's only ok to bash the small religions.
|
|
The main content of this thread is the disbelief that one man in a small obscure radio program can have this much media attention for his ignorant comments
Oh I see, the phrasing is at issue. Very well.
I can't believe anybody would be so foolish as to pay any attention to a bunch of schizophrenics who can't get laid pontificate from absolute ignorance about sexuality, deriving their authority from an ancient collection of writings of the mentally unstable. What's wrong with them?
Better? Or is it only ok if the religion is small?
And yes, that's a serious question.
You and I both know that if I decided it was hateful or bigoted to bash the religion of the tiny orbiting teapot no serious-minded religious person would come to my defense, I'd be generally ridiculed, and there would be absolutely no understanding from anyone on the boards that I felt the tone of anyone else was hateful or bigoted. Said much better by others, mass delusion is sane, micro delusion is just delusion.
A: yes, it's only ok to bash the small religions.
Phrasing is not an issue.
No it is not right to bash the small religions. I do not feel I am doing so. I am expressing disbelief and some small outrage for a man who attempts to speak with authority on my religion, with off kilter and in many ways hurtful statements that make those of us who are sane and earnest believers seem not so.
I ask that you check your posting. If you do not notice how hateful and unnecessarily directed it is, all I can say is I feel sorry for you.
Delusion is delusion, your opinion on what is delusional does not change what is and what is not real. Be it small or large.
No it is not right to bash the small religions. I do not feel I am doing so. I am expressing disbelief and some small outrage for a man who attempts to speak with authority on my religion, with off kilter and in many ways hurtful statements that make those of us who are sane and earnest believers seem not so.
To me it appears that the largest difference between what Mr. Camping believes and what a great deal of the rest of Christianity believes is only that Mr. Camping put an actual date on said Rapture. The rest you're all in agreement on (basically that it will happen and all the unbelieving suckers will be left behind on a doomed planet).
Is that really what you'd consider an off kilter and hurtful statement?Ridiculing a man for putting a date on something you both believe in?
Delusion is delusion, your opinion on what is delusional does not change what is and what is not real. Be it small or large.
Quite right, I hope you see the irony in this statement...
|
|
No it is not right to bash the small religions. I do not feel I am doing so. I am expressing disbelief and some small outrage for a man who attempts to speak with authority on my religion, with off kilter and in many ways hurtful statements that make those of us who are sane and earnest believers seem not so.To me it appears that the largest difference between what Mr. Camping believes and what a great deal of the rest of Christianity believes is only that Mr. Camping put an actual date on said Rapture. The rest you're all in agreement on (basically that it will happen and all the unbelieving suckers will be left behind on a doomed planet).
Is that really what you'd consider an off kilter and hurtful statement?
Ridiculing a man for putting a date on something you both believe in?Delusion is delusion, your opinion on what is delusional does not change what is and what is not real. Be it small or large.Quite right, I hope you see the irony in this statement...
I do not believe in the rapture. I know of several who do not. In fact I know of a great many who do not.
I hope you see the irony as well GG. I doubt it.
|
|
On the other hand, a great many Christians do believe in the rapture. In fact, several came to this thread to quote verses which state that no one knows the hour...
So, you seem to be criticizing a belief held by a great number of Christians, but not by your personal sect of Christianity.
Well lets clarify this shall we. Evangelical Christians have hold this belief. They have only held this belief for a short time. I believe that it is a great misreading of scripture.
painting us all with one broad stroke is a little dumb, short sighted and in many ways as bigoted as many here claim us to be.
Sorry I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into this further. I have had it proved previously that this is a wasted effort.
A: yes, it's only ok to bash the small religions.
Ok. Now I know.
|
So, you seem to be criticizing a belief held by a great number of Christians, but not by your personal sect of Christianity.
The rapture is not a belief within the Catholic Church which is still the largest sect nor do you find it in the Church of England. I can not speak for Lutherans or Methodists but I would be surprised. So to state that almost all or even a great majority of Christians believe in the rapture is incorrect.
Basically this is the Christian equivalent of Islam's virgins for martyrs. It is well known but not widely believed. It is also a belief that can lead to self destructive activities. It causes people to do things that harm themselves and others in the name of religion.
Camping did inflict harm on people with his teaching by convincing them to spend personal resources they could ill afford. Harming another human being is a sin. The Christian faith requires followers to speak out against those who use Christ’s teaching as an excuse to sin against others. The followers of the Christian faith have not always done that as they should but the failure of others and of previous generations to fulfill that duty does not absolve this generation of that duty to speak out against Camping, gay bashing, or blowing up a bus.
As for the passage that gets quoted it is important but not for the reason the Evangelical Christians give. The passage is not about that Christ is going to come out of the blue and the world will come to sudden end. The passage is about the importance to live a good life starting today not tomorrow or the day after because you might get hit by a bus crossing the road tomorrow.
As far as I know rapture theology is mostly popular among evangelical christianity, and calvinists. It is very popular in the US. But not many places outside the US.
Please end my suffering. I beg you.
Please end my suffering. I beg you.
F!!+ you, dead horse! I despise you and all your dead equine kind!
*Proceeds with Beating*
As far as I know rapture theology is mostly popular among evangelical christianity, and calvinists. It is very popular in the US. But not many places outside the US.
I had a calvinist in a few of my British literature classes in Canada. He (personally) was a nutbag. Him and his nutbag friends used to set up a booth refuting evolution in the student's union building. I remember standing there one day for about 30 minutes, chatting with them. I was completely baked out of my gourd after smoking up in the art department spray room (it had great exhaust fans for removing solvent fumes).
They had calculated the chances of all the atoms of a mouse randomly coming together is a cosmic accident (spontaneous generation) and argued that the outrageous improbability disproved evolution. About 2 minutes into our chat they decided I wasn't enough of a mindless sheep to swallow up their outrageous lies and spent the rest of the 30 minutes trying to get rid of me.
I do not believe in the rapture. I know of several who do not. In fact I know of a great many who do not.
I hope you see the irony as well GG. I doubt it.
I see the irony of people claiming to be Christians, yet nitpicking the scriptures as they see fit to make it fit into their particular perspective, thus not following the actual book they claim to be their source of ultimate everything (from morals to living guidelines and so on). :-)
I see the irony of people claiming to be Christians, yet nitpicking the scriptures as they see fit to make it fit into their particular perspective, thus not following the actual book they claim to be their source of ultimate everything (from morals to living guidelines and so on). :-)I do not believe in the rapture. I know of several who do not. In fact I know of a great many who do not.
I hope you see the irony as well GG. I doubt it.
I think you're a great guy, GG, and you've been around here for a long time, and made some fantastic contributions to discussions on these boards, but that's seriously insulting.
Your choice of words implies that people are selfishly or ignorantly picking and choosing beliefs. Your words imply that these people are not really Christian. Sorry, but there are Christians who don't believe in rapture, who don't buy the hell, who think the kingdom of God is here and now not an immortal reward, that the Bible is not infallible, and all manner of interesting heresies--and here's the clincher: they are subscribing to these beliefs because they actually think about things. My guess is that you just don't want to call them Christians because it interferes with your tidy label. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have news for you, and for any other atheists who haven't figured this out: Christian belief is not homogeneous.
Also, if you think a priori thinking is a flaw that you're somehow above you seriously need to pick up a first year psych textbook, because you're not.
So congratulations, you just lashed out at Christians who actually think for themselves.
I think you're a great guy, GG, and you've been around here for a long time, and made some fantastic contributions to discussions on these boards, but that's seriously insulting.I see the irony of people claiming to be Christians, yet nitpicking the scriptures as they see fit to make it fit into their particular perspective, thus not following the actual book they claim to be their source of ultimate everything (from morals to living guidelines and so on). :-)I do not believe in the rapture. I know of several who do not. In fact I know of a great many who do not.
I hope you see the irony as well GG. I doubt it.
First of all, thanks for the compliments. :-)
I disagree that what I wrote is insulting, however. If pointing out what a lot of people actually do, based on rampant evidence everywhere, then anything can be insulting.Your choice of words implies that people are selfishly or ignorantly picking and choosing beliefs. Your words imply that these people are not really Christian. Sorry, but there are Christians who don't believe in rapture, who don't buy the hell, who think the kingdom of God is here and now not an immortal reward, that the Bible is not infallible, and all manner of interesting heresies--and here's the clincher: they are subscribing to these beliefs because they actually think about things. My guess is that you just don't want to call them Christians because it interferes with your tidy label. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I use the label they use themselves, Christians. I think it's great that they think about these things, that's a big redeeming feature in my eyes, but if Christianity encompasses all these "heresies" it quickly starts to lose its power as a unifying label. If you have to preface your introduction with "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in this, this and this" then you can't really quantify what it means to be a Christian.
I have news for you, and for any other atheists who haven't figured this out: Christian belief is not homogeneous.
Which, again, flies in the face of holding the Bible up as a book to live by.
Also, if you think a priori thinking is a flaw that you're somehow above you seriously need to pick up a first year psych textbook, because you're not.
So congratulations, you just lashed out at Christians who actually think for themselves.
I'd contend that Christians who think for themselves and have discarded some parts of their/Christianity's beliefs, but still hold on to other parts, haven't done enough thinking. :-)
Call that a priori thinking if you like. :-)
Which, again, flies in the face of holding the Bible up as a book to live by.
I'm sorry, can you point to where Jesus admonishes us to live by the words in the Bible? I'm not familiar with that part. This answers some of the other confounding remarks you have made.
I'd contend that Christians who think for themselves and have discarded some parts of their/Christianity's beliefs, but still hold on to other parts, haven't done enough thinking. :-)
Call that a priori thinking if you like. :-)
This doesn't really merit a response but I'll indulge you. Who has discarded something here? Are you replying to another poster here, because I'm not talking about discarding things.
Also, it sort of makes me wonder, is there some yardstick that you're using and not mentioning to me here?
It seems all in all that a lot of this stuff is just coming out of nowhere.
Now to JMD031 with a lesson on perception.
Thank you. First off, I just wanted to say what an honor it is to be able to speak here today. Now, let's get down to business shall we.
Perception is defined as 1. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding. 2. immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment. and 3. the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.
What importance does this have on the topic at hand, well it has been questioned whether or not certain individuals are being insulting. On one hand they believe they are not being insulting. On the other hand, there are people who say they are. Who is right? Both of them and neither at the same time. The answer lies in how each individual person would perceive such statements. If one person finds it insulting then it is insulting TO THEM but it may not be insulting to the general populace. If more people have the perception that they have been insulted by this statement then we can perhaps make inferences about how insulting it would be towards the general populace BUT we cannot make broad sweeping statements like "This is an insulting comment because (X number) of people perceive it as insulting". One might be able to say "This statement has the potential as being perceived as insulting and therefore caution should be made when making it or reading it" but that is about as far as it can go.
So basically, everything that could and will be said has the potential for being insulting depending on the person's beliefs, background, heritage and several other factors. Individuals who share several of those qualities will band together due to having a common interest in feeling as if they have been insulted and attempt to fight against the individual who they feel was insulting in the first place because everyone knows that 2 or more is better than 1.
The question remains, "Why have you posted this long wall of text?" Two reasons: 1. I wanted to take this opportunity to potentially educate people who may be interested in how the human mind actually works. 2. I wanted to bore people with a long post so that maybe this topic will die like it should have days ago. The "event" is over people, let it go.
For you TL:DR folks out there: What you perceive can only be held truthful to you, if you believe something isn't insulting or hurtful doesn't mean someone else out there does. Before you post, really think about how what you post will be perceived by others. And finally, LET THIS TOPIC DIE! No good can come from it no matter what your beliefs are.
I disagree that what I wrote is insulting, however. If pointing out what a lot of people actually do, based on rampant evidence everywhere, then anything can be insulting.
People quite often find generalization and loaded language to be insulting. People less often find balanced insights to be insulting. In pointing that out based on "rampant" evidence everywhere, am I being insulting?
Look dude: I have no problem admitting that the loudmouth asshat Christians are pretty intolerable. On the other hand, at least I understand that the loudest of them are giving the thoughtful, intelligent, and honest Christians a bad name. What's really strange is that I've noticed the same thing about conservatives, liberals, and atheists--in fact pretty well any group you want to single out.
... their/Christianity's beliefs...
Are these the same? Please explain to me how Christianity believes anything. And oh my you have a broad brush my friend.
... a pretty basic but very important observation of human nature...
GOES WILD!
Now to JMD031 with a lesson on perception.
Thank you. First off, I just wanted to say what an honor it is to be able to speak here today. Now, let's get down to business shall we.
Perception is defined as 1. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding. 2. immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment. and 3. the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.
What importance does this have on the topic at hand, well it has been questioned whether or not certain individuals are being insulting. On one hand they believe they are not being insulting. On the other hand, there are people who say they are. Who is right? Both of them and neither at the same time. The answer lies in how each individual person would perceive such statements. If one person finds it insulting then it is insulting TO THEM but it may not be insulting to the general populace. If more people have the perception that they have been insulted by this statement then we can perhaps make inferences about how insulting it would be towards the general populace BUT we cannot make broad sweeping statements like "This is an insulting comment because (X number) of people perceive it as insulting". One might be able to say "This statement has the potential as being perceived as insulting and therefore caution should be made when making it or reading it" but that is about as far as it can go.
So basically, everything that could and will be said has the potential for being insulting depending on the person's beliefs, background, heritage and several other factors. Individuals who share several of those qualities will band together due to having a common interest in feeling as if they have been insulted and attempt to fight against the individual who they feel was insulting in the first place because everyone...
Wait, so if anyone can get offended by anything, why do I care what they think? What if I am offended at their being offended?
Which, again, flies in the face of holding the Bible up as a book to live by.I'm sorry, can you point to where Jesus admonishes us to live by the words in the Bible? I'm not familiar with that part. This answers some of the other confounding remarks you have made.
Christians admonishes us to live by the words in the Bible. Actually, to some degree it's written within too, the whole "I am the truth" part (no, don't have a passage number handy).
If they then turn around and don't follow it themselves, how can we take them seriously?I'd contend that Christians who think for themselves and have discarded some parts of their/Christianity's beliefs, but still hold on to other parts, haven't done enough thinking. :-)
Call that a priori thinking if you like. :-)This doesn't really merit a response but I'll indulge you. Who has discarded something here? Are you replying to another poster here, because I'm not talking about discarding things.
Also, it sort of makes me wonder, is there some yardstick that you're using and not mentioning to me here?
It seems all in all that a lot of this stuff is just coming out of nowhere.
Crimson Jester said that he didn't believe in the Rapture, as does many other Christians as per his statement, thus he (and they) has discarded that part. I can only hope he, and others, have discarded the stoning parts too, albeit that's mostly old testament stuff. I wonder where they stand on not allowing women to teach or requiring them to cover their heads in church? What about praying in public?
So you see, lots of Christians discard pieces of scripture if it doesn't fit their particular view.|
|
Wait, so if anyone can get offended by anything, why do I care what they think? What if I am offended at their being offended?
I'm offended by people with numbers in their usernames! And, on behalf of my oppressed simian brethren, I am offended by your avatar, which suggests some connection between baboons and demons!
I'm also offended with myself for how easily I am offended! I should be better than this!
The exclusive and exclusionary use of English in my post is clearly offensive to non-English speaking folk, as well.
My use of a computer to send this message is offensive to technophobes. But if any of you have logged on to read this, how are you using oxen to generate electricity?
My posting this from a PC is a deliberate rebuke of Mac, and my use of whatever operating system and / or browser I'm using is clearly meant as an insult to the ones I'm not using!
Or, as the old saying goes, 'Offense is like virtue, more often taken, than given.'
People quite often find generalization and loaded language to be insulting. People less often find balanced insights to be insulting. In pointing that out based on "rampant" evidence everywhere, am I being insulting?
I disagree that what I wrote is insulting, however. If pointing out what a lot of people actually do, based on rampant evidence everywhere, then anything can be insulting.
Again, I fail to see how pointing out the truth is loaded and offensive language. Sure, some might find it unnerving to have it pointed out, but that doesn't make it insulting, nor any less true.
Care to refute that a lot of Christians (Muslims too for that matter) pick and choose from their holy book to further their personal viewpoint, while discarding/paying no attention to other parts of the book?Look dude: I have no problem admitting that the loudmouth asshat Christians are pretty intolerable. On the other hand, at least I understand that the loudest of them are giving the thoughtful, intelligent, and honest Christians a bad name. What's really strange is that I've noticed the same thing about conservatives, liberals, and atheists--in fact pretty well any group you want to single out.
The problem is threefold, first, not enough are calling out the "loudmouth asshats" if they really do find that they give them a bad name.
Second, one reason why they might not do that is that they just might agree with them, they're just not vocal about it.Third, some people keep saying that it's just the "vocal minority" that acts like this. Well, if you consider anyone who writes something about it online as part of the "vocal minority" then you're right, but it's a pretty darn big "minority" all of a sudden then. It's right there in scripture, Jesus says himself that he'll return some day. As I said above, the difference between Camping and a (and this might be conjecture on my part) the majority of other Christians is that he put an actual date on when it would happen, while the rest just say "well, we don't know when it'll happen" and point to where it says so in scripture.
*sigh*
Didn't I already take responsibility for being the buzzkill of the thread and return it to its original lighthearted fun-poking?
Every group of people is known for its "vocal minority." That's where a lot of stereotypes come from.
I'd also go into a tedious religious studies based post on how "the bible" wasn't originally intended to be read as a whole work, but I just don't want to.
You're all incredibly silly. You're sitting here arguing over religion, when there's only five months left of the world in which to enjoy yourselves. I suggest you reexamine your priorities.
|
|
Which, again, flies in the face of holding the Bible up as a book to live by.I'm sorry, can you point to where Jesus admonishes us to live by the words in the Bible? I'm not familiar with that part. This answers some of the other confounding remarks you have made.Christians admonishes us to live by the words in the Bible. Actually, to some degree it's written within too, the whole "I am the truth" part (no, don't have a passage number handy).
If they then turn around and don't follow it themselves, how can we take them seriously?I'd contend that Christians who think for themselves and have discarded some parts of their/Christianity's beliefs, but still hold on to other parts, haven't done enough thinking. :-)
Call that a priori thinking if you like. :-)This doesn't really merit a response but I'll indulge you. Who has discarded something here? Are you replying to another poster here, because I'm not talking about discarding things.
Also, it sort of makes me wonder, is there some yardstick that you're using and not mentioning to me here?
It seems all in all that a lot of this stuff is just coming out of nowhere.
Crimson Jester said that he didn't believe in the Rapture, as does many other Christians as per his statement, thus he (and they) has discarded that part. I can only hope he, and others, have discarded the stoning parts too, albeit that's mostly old testament stuff. I wonder where they stand on not allowing women to teach or requiring them to cover their heads in church? What about praying in public?
So you see, lots of Christians discard pieces of scripture if it doesn't fit their particular view.
The concept of this thing called the Rapture is from misreadings of passages of the Bible. It is not in anyway in the Bible if those passages are read in context.
Side question, how many here have actually read a Bible, if not for spiritual growth but for a historical perspective on literature?
|
|
*sigh*
Didn't I already take responsibility for being the buzzkill of the thread and return it to its original lighthearted fun-poking?
Every group of people is known for its "vocal minority." That's where a lot of stereotypes come from.
I'd also go into a tedious religious studies based post on how "the bible" wasn't originally intended to be read as a whole work, but I just don't want to.
You're all incredibly silly. You're sitting here arguing over religion, when there's only five months left of the world in which to enjoy yourselves. I suggest you reexamine your priorities.
Yes just imagine if we did in fact sell everything and quit our jobs because "the world as we know it was going to end." How much gaming could I actually do in say 5 months. I mean nothing is on TV. Yeah I would need sunlight sometime, but 10 hour shifts at work kills that a lot anyway, and this time of year is so overcast and rainy I stay inside a lot anyway.
Didn't I already take responsibility for being the buzzkill of the thread and return it to its original lighthearted fun-poking?
I guess it's easier to start a fire than to put one out.
Yes just imagine if we did in fact sell everything and quit our jobs because "the world as we know it was going to end." How much gaming could I actually do in say 5 months. I mean nothing is on TV. Yeah I would need sunlight sometime, but 10 hour shifts at work kills that a lot anyway, and this time of year is so overcast and rainy I stay inside a lot anyway.
Well, if you're selling everything I'd suggest getting camping gear and buying a camping permit. Then you can keep gaming nonstop and still be outdoors during the summer months. Nonstop gaming means you can probably grab up any APs you'd like to run through and get them done before the end of everything. A fine accomplishment, in my opinion.
|
|
Well, if you're selling everything I'd suggest getting camping gear and buying a camping permit. Then you can keep gaming nonstop and still be outdoors during the summer months. Nonstop gaming means you can probably grab up any APs you'd like to run through and get them done before the end of everything. A fine accomplishment, in my opinion.
Yes just imagine if we did in fact sell everything and quit our jobs because "the world as we know it was going to end." How much gaming could I actually do in say 5 months. I mean nothing is on TV. Yeah I would need sunlight sometime, but 10 hour shifts at work kills that a lot anyway, and this time of year is so overcast and rainy I stay inside a lot anyway.
say guesstimate two weeks for an adventure path. So maybe two a month and then that means roughly 10 AP's before it is all over.
Christians admonishes us to live by the words in the Bible. Actually, to some degree it's written within too, the whole "I am the truth" part (no, don't have a passage number handy).
If they then turn around and don't follow it themselves, how can we take them seriously?
This is just sort of a hand wave dismissal using a generalized view of Christians. Do you actually think this is debate? Get over yourself.
Look GG, lets strip away the brainwashed God talk here. The Bible is one of the key useful references (but not the only one) that gives a picture of what Jesus taught. It's a f%*+ing book, not with a capital b. In it is a historical record written by men. People who seek to use Jesus' teaching as the foundation for their lifestyle, ethics and world view, for their philosophy of life--must largely rely on the Bible. That doesn't mean they should suspend their critical mind and follow the words blindly, in fact precisely the opposite. Many of the people who do this call themselves Christians and they don't deserve your dismissal. As it is they are quit tired of engaging with other louder spokespeople who seem to get a lot more attention through the media, which loves a&&%*++s.
The problem is threefold, first, not enough are calling out the "loudmouth asshats" if they really do find that they give them a bad name.
Second, one reason why they might not do that is that they just might agree with them, they're just not vocal about it.
Third, some people keep saying that it's just the "vocal minority" that acts like this. Well, if you consider anyone who writes something about it online as part of the "vocal minority" then you're right, but it's a pretty darn big "minority" all of a sudden then. It's right there in scripture, Jesus says himself that he'll return some day. As I said above, the difference between Camping and a (and this might be conjecture on my part) the majority of other Christians is that he put an actual date...
You think you're calling someone out on this thread and somehow standing up and righting a wrong? Hehe. That's funny. Honestly, I doubt anything that you've done here is going to make a whit of difference to the problem at hand. Try standing up to an asshat in a roomful of Christians. Trying standing up to an asshat in front of a congregation. Tell me GG the last time you really actually engaged someone on this in and amongst a group of Christians and made a difference. I can tell you the last time I've done it, and I can tell you the last time a good many of my comrades have done it.
I can also reference the writings of Christians who are not like this. The fact that your exposure to Christianity only includes mindless parroting of dogma says nothing about the homogeneity of Christianity, it only speaks of your narrow experience.
In all of this I have only one key point. Stop treating Christians and Christianity as a homogeneous group. They are not. You are going to go nowhere doing so. The same goes for Muslims. As long as you do so you are going to come across as an ignorant child. And you are going to continue shutting down dialogue instead of opening it up, and if you really do want to fight ignorance that, sir, is a grievous error.
Care to refute that a lot of Christians (Muslims too for that matter) pick and choose from their holy book to further their personal viewpoint, while discarding/paying no attention to other parts of the book?
Most of them haven't even read it. I now know for a fact that you've never actually engaged with the people you're waving your hands at. Conversation over. Do not even f@+*ing bother.
... imagine if we did in fact sell everything and quit our jobs because "the world as we know it was going to end." How much gaming could I actually do in say 5 months.
I think back to when I was 20 as a reference. I would say you could do a serious s#%#load of gaming. But I wouldn't want to just run APs and D&D. This kind of commitment and gaming intensity over 5 months would require some different systems to keep everything fresh. Also, I assume civilization would gradually crumble over the timespan, so there would be some stockpiling, looting, and probably some real life adventuring, just to stay alive and keep the game group together.
This kind of commitment and gaming intensity over 5 months would require some different systems to keep everything fresh.
Toon! Traveller: 2300 AD! Battletech! Boot Hill! Cyberpunk! Earthdawn! MERP!
|
|
So, you seem to be criticizing a belief held by a great number of Christians, but not by your personal sect of Christianity.
The rapture is not a belief within the Catholic Church which is still the largest sect nor do you find it in the Church of England. I can not speak for Lutherans or Methodists but I would be surprised. So to state that almost all or even a great majority of Christians believe in the rapture is incorrect.
Good thing I didn't say that then.
I did not even come close to saying that.
My point is that the Rapture is a widely held belief among some sects of Christianity, and that if the only difference between them and Camping's followers is that they believed he could work out the day and time, whereas the others believe that it cannot be predicted, would you call the greater number who hold this belief crazy?
CJ basically said I don't believe it, it is based on eroneous reading of select passages. He chooses to dismiss this particular belief and those who hold it. Those who believe in the rapture would be just as irrate at him as he seems to be at GG's dismissal of the whole of Christianity.
|
|
Camping did inflict harm on people with his teaching by convincing them to spend personal resources they could ill afford. Harming another human being is a sin. The Christian faith requires followers to speak out against those who use Christ’s teaching as an excuse to sin against others. The followers of the Christian faith have not always done that as they should but the failure of others and of previous generations to fulfill that duty does not absolve this generation of that duty to speak out against Camping, gay bashing, or blowing up a bus.
Gay bashing?
V22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
V13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
The bible encourages gay bashing, not speaking out against it.
As for the passage that gets quoted it is important but not for the reason the Evangelical Christians give. The passage is not about that Christ is going to come out of the blue and the world will come to sudden end. The passage is about the importance to live a good life starting today not tomorrow or the day after because you might get hit by a bus crossing the road tomorrow.
Sure, as you interpret it now. But that's not what it meant when it was written.
|
|
The most human thing in all this to me is how many want to just bash on Camping and his followers. Here is a man of deep religeous conviction who spoke the word of Christ to all who would listen, gathered the faithful to further spread the word of God to as many people as he could, at great expense to both himself and his followers, all in service to his beliefs about the absolute certainty of his God's return.
Here is a man doing as Jesus and the apostles commanded. And for it, he gets mocked by his brethren and unbelievers alike. And rather than surrender to despair, he has turned around and continued spreading word of Jesus' impending return. The bible is full of examples of people who have been tested in this manner by God. They call them prophets.
One day, God willing, Camping will be proven right and his sacrifice and those of those who follow his example will be cast in a new light, the light of righteousness and truth. If God is willing to make it so.
Here is a man of deep religious conviction who spoke the word of Christ to all who would listen, gathered the faithful to further spread the word of God to as many people as he could, at great expense to both himself and his followers, all in service to his beliefs about the absolute certainty of his God's return.
Here is a man doing as Jesus and the apostles commanded. And for it, he gets mocked by his brethren and unbelievers alike. And rather than surrender to despair, he has turned around and continued spreading word of Jesus' impending return. The bible is full of examples of people who have been tested in this manner by God. They call them prophets.
Hospitals are full of people like this too. Doctors call them paranoid schizophrenics with delusions of grandeur.