|
Sure.
And some atheists call theists the same thing.
Is his belief really any more far fetched than believing that a loving god created the universe we actually live in? Or that unprovable metaphysical planes called heaven and hell await us based on whether or not we believe a man born over 2000 years ago was the son of this God and was put here to absolve us of sins against this god?
If he was right, what would that have made you? What kind of hell on earth would we be experiencing now? Tornados? Floods? Tsunamis? World Wide Warfare?
Would we be even be able to tell if he was right? Maybe he was right, just not worthy of heaven. Maybe so few people were that we didn't even notice them among the thousands of others who go missing every day.
Considering how many different interpretations there are of the bible, who the hell are we to say which one is right and true?
Side question, how many here have actually read a Bible, if not for spiritual growth but for a historical perspective on literature?
I have, although it's been a little while since I've read it all the way through.
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.
But if they don't suspend their critical minds and don't follow the words blindly, there really isn't much left in the book to follow, so why use it at all? If someone still insists on using it, I contend that they haven't fully suspended their critical mind and are in fact following parts of it blindly.
Even within Christianity as a whole you'll find people who contend that if you don't follow this or that rule, passage, law etc. you're not really a Christian.They can't even agree on what it constitutes to be a Christian, so the word has largely lost any coherent meaning. It's like anyone putting on a Green Bay Packers jersey and calling themself a Packers player.
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.
Please read what it is I'm writing. I'm saying that not enough Christians are calling out other Christians for being asshats. Clean up your own ranks if you want people to take you serious (same goes with other groups).
I know that I'll probably not change many minds here, that doesn't mean that I should be silent about it. Not doing anything is just letting the asshats win.And I have actually called someone out in a group largely consisting of Christians. In fact I've called out a missionary and a priest on several occasions.
Also, as to my "narrow experience" read more at the bottom.
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.
But Christians WANT to be seen as a homogeneous group, hence why they call themselves Christians...
Except, they don't want to be lumped in with the crazies or the splinter groups who are too "heretic" (from THEIR point of view), thus they often engage in the no-true-Scotsman fallacy.As long as they don't clean ranks, yes, I will continue to treat them as a homogeneous group, that's the "penalty" for not distancing themselves from those who harm others and use their religion to justify it.
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.
I've dealt with pretty much the entire range of people who call themselves Christians. Haven't had much to do with the nutty standing-on-the-street-corner-shouting kind, but pretty much everyone else.
Yes, some of them are more rational than others, but they still hold to some unrational beliefs. And so far I haven't met a single one who entirely dismisses the Bible as "just a book."Can anyone really do that and still call themselves a Christian?
...so why use it at all?...
You're being willfully ignorant. Read my previous post.
If someone still insists on using it, I contend that they haven't fully suspended their critical mind and are in fact following parts of it blindly.
Ditto. Wow. Just wow. So just because people read something they are following parts of it blindly? Do I get you right? Can this comment come from an intelligent person? Help me, here. Do you realize that people derive moral lessons even from pure fiction?
...if you don't follow this or that rule, passage, law etc. you're not really a Christian...
Bad enough that they do it, but from your previous posts it seems that you are also guilty of this. Good job, you're doing the same thing as those asshats.
They can't even agree on what it constitutes to be a Christian, so...
Exactly, so then why are you generalizing about Christians? Please remind me.
And so far I haven't met a single one who entirely dismisses the Bible as "just a book."
Can anyone really do that and still call themselves a Christian?
Of course. But then by not idolizing the book you are stirring up quite a lot of shit.
I've dealt with pretty much the entire range of people who call themselves Christians.
Let's handle your thoughts in reverse order.
Considering how many different interpretations there are of the bible, who the hell are we to say which one is right and true?
This is reminiscent of Buridan's ass; a hypothetical donkey equidistant between two bales of equally delicious hay. Because he cannot rationally decide between the two, he starves to death while weighing his options.
There may be many different interpretations and there may be no way to determine the absolute truth or absolute falsehood of those interpretations. However, I don't think those two conditions absolve us of the intellectual duty to critically examine prominent interpretations of ideas.
Would we be even be able to tell if he was right? Maybe he was right, just not worthy of heaven. Maybe so few people were that we didn't even notice them among the thousands of others who go missing every day.
This is actually quite an important question, and points toward even more important and general questions.
Instead of considering if he was right about the rapture, let's consider:
A. How do we know anybody is right about any claim?
Assume we are on an aircraft at 30,000 ft. You rise from your seat to use a bathroom in a rear section of the aircraft. I claim that beyond the curtain separating the front and rear passenger section, there is a full grown Bengal Tiger waiting to devour you on the other side of the curtain.
By default (without considering any other evidence), would you assume that I am correct about my claim or incorrect about my claim?
Having answered that, assume that my claim is the opposite (if you default to true, assume that I am wrong; if you default to false, assume that I am correct) .. what evidence would it take to change your mind?
How would you apply these concepts to other claims, such as religious claims, or claims about rapture dates?
Is his belief really any more far fetched than believing that a loving god created the universe we actually live in? Or that unprovable metaphysical planes called heaven and hell await us based on whether or not we believe a man born over 2000 years ago was the son of this God and was put here to absolve us of sins against this god?
Ahhh, very convenient. Here is a nice set of claims to test the epistemological ideas we developed earlier.
Clean up your own ranks if you want people to take you serious (same goes with other groups).
If I were a Christian I would not be responsible for what Christians do as a group any more than a non-Christian is responsible for what non-Christians do as a group. Christianity is not some kind of club where everyone gets together decides what Christians should say and do.
By this kind of reasoning if 20% of atheists were complete jerks then none of atheism should be taken seriously.
I've dealt with pretty much the entire range of people who call themselves Christians.Obviously not.
Apparently I cannot communicate my thoughts clearly enough, a failure on my part, so I'll refrain from commenting further about the other parts.
I would like to make a small comment on this, though.I had never heard about Spong before this post. While I find myself in agreement with a lot of his Twelve Points of Reform (if religion can't be left behind as ancient mythology of no use today, then this at least makes it a lot more palatable), it seems to me that he's willing to discard most of the Bible as a reference book on most things. Thus, in my experience, I doubt he'd have a large following among most Christians. Yes, I know there are very liberal Christians out there, I've met a lot of them too, but no one who's been this "dismissive" of certain tenets of the Christian faith.
And I'd still contend that large groups of Christians would dismiss Spong as "a real Christian."
So we're back to my assertion that basically anyone can call themselves Christians, thus the meaning of the word is lost or severely diminished.
...thus the meaning of the word is lost or severely diminished.
The meaning of the word as YOU see it is "lost or severely diminished". Meaning when Spong is a Christian your claims and generalizations become problematic.
Spong's following is far from minuscule, and he's hardly the only one talking like this: the world or Christianity is deep and broad.
Just as camping's nutbaggery is hardly isolated. Here in the Philippines, in Pampanga, men had themselves nailed to the cross for Easter. Some of them have done it dozens of times. Shall I then hold this up against Christianity in all its variety and discord and say "Look, you guys are idiots." That's more or less, crudely put, what I see happening on these boards on a daily basis.
Luckily I realize that this kind of thinking is not characteristic of non-Christians as a group (as if they were a "group"), nor atheism--it's just that some individual people to whom those labels can be applied are being ignorant and irrational about a subject for which they have considerable bias.
And I'd still contend that large groups of Christians would dismiss Spong as "a real Christian."
You'd be quite right, "large groups" of Christians would do this, and have. As apparently would you. Luckily he doesn't give a shit about your labeling rationale--and I say that as someone who has heard Spong lecture on many occasions.
(Edit: My experience is just as you've said, that a lot of Christians love to benchmark what it means to be "Christian". Thank God there are also lots of them that don't. These latter, or so I've noticed, are generally the type that are more worried about how they conduct themselves, ethically and spiritually, and much less worried about measuring how well others do so. It's interesting that some of the wisdom sayings of Jesus can be used to address this distinction.)
The world will not end on October 21, 2011. The world will greatly change when all of the real Christians disappear, and the unsaved are "left behind" to be tortured by the Antichrist. The Rapture is coming and I cannot wait!
Side question, how many here have actually read a Bible, if not for spiritual growth but for a historical perspective on literature?
*raises hand*
Not every single word of it, but goodly sections. I wouldn't call the KJV exactly fun reading, but it has some great turns of phrase that are rightly remembered on their aesthetic merits.
I've also gone out of my way a bit to read about how the present canons developed and the evolving and conflicting ideologies therein. It's a really neat story, actually.
|
Gads! I haven't played Boot Hill in AGES!!!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!
I would love to see a good updated game for Boot Hill. The best part of it was the couple of modules whereby you cold take your DnD character to BootHill or vice a versa.
|
|
Redacted some posts. Sorry, finding myself caught in a discussion where I'm being some sort of troll.
So... Have you Boot Hill lovers considered Aces and Eights[?
...(if religion can't be left behind as ancient mythology of no use today, then this at least makes it a lot more palatable)...
As with all other cultural phenomena, it will never be "left behind". What will happen is that it will gradually change (no doubt with bursts here and there) and develop... and evolve. What will remain of religion in 2000 years, who can tell? But it's not going to be the same as it is now, any more than it is now what it was 2000 years ago.
So... Have you Boot Hill lovers considered Aces and Eights?
Wow. Nice production quality. I wonder what would happen if I dip my horror into that nice frontier western? HMmmmmm.
...Philippines, in Pampanga, men had themselves nailed to the cross for Easter. Some of them have done it dozens of times. Shall I then hold this up against Christianity in all its variety and discord and say "Look, you guys are idiots." That's more or less, crudely put, what I see happening on these boards on a daily basis.
Does Johnny Knoxville know about this?
Oh,.....and, usually "considering the source" kinda negates the whole thing.
|
Redacted some posts. Sorry, finding myself caught in a discussion where I'm being some sort of troll.
So... Have you Boot Hill lovers considered Aces and Eights[?
Interesting ... not sure what I think about needing a deck of playing cards to resolve combat (or poker chips for their brawling system). Have you played it? Does the system flow well?
...Philippines, in Pampanga, men had themselves nailed to the cross for Easter. Some of them have done it dozens of times. Shall I then hold this up against Christianity in all its variety and discord and say "Look, you guys are idiots." That's more or less, crudely put, what I see happening on these boards on a daily basis.
Does Johnny Knoxville know about this?
Oh,.....and, usually "considering the source" kinda negates the whole thing.
Now nailing outlandish blue goblins to the cross, that would be something to talk about. CRUCIFY THE DEVIANT!
I think I'll staplegun a pig scrotum to my forehead, go to Paizo, and grief christians.
every day for four years.
Who can even gives a f!$# about anything you say after that?
I think I'll staplegun a pig scrotum to my forehead, go to Paizo, and grief christians.
every day for four years.
Who can even gives a f*&% about anything you say after that?
Well, you know, the pig scrotum is hanging there and smacking you anyway, right? So why not?
|
|
Interesting ... not sure what I think about needing a deck of playing cards to resolve combat (or poker chips for their brawling system). Have you played it? Does the system flow well?Redacted some posts. Sorry, finding myself caught in a discussion where I'm being some sort of troll.
So... Have you Boot Hill lovers considered Aces and Eights[?
I've only played in a demo game at Origins. There were too many players, no one playing knew the rules, and it was only a 1/2 hour demo.
The game has a lot of neat subsystems, the career path mechanic is pretty good, and all in all the play seems to be able to be run smoothly up until someone pulls iron.
I'm sure once the players have some mastery over the combat system it would run smoothly, but in the demo about 4 people only moved, several of us tried shooting and missed, and maybe 2 people actually did some damage... Which effectively removed their targets from the demo. Gunfights are slow motion deadly action scenes. The targeting system is actually pretty neat, even with the cards involved. Basically, you take an appropriate silhoutte and line your bullseye where you want to shoot the mangy varmit whut took yer hoss, roll to see how close you get to the precise spot you want to hit (modified for range) - this determines what "ring" within the bullseys style target your shot lands, and then draw a card to see what vector within that ring your bullet actually went to. It could be somewhere on his body, just over his shoulder, or far and wide, depending on your roll/card and where you aimed for. Want to do a head shot? Fair enough, but there's a lot of air for your bullet to stray into. Center mass? Lots better chance of hitting flesh.[EDIT: Oh yeah, shotguns have their own "Scatter" Bullseye. Holy crap they're messy and deadly.]Shot Clock Demo
The initiative system probably has the biggest learning curve, as your movement, drawing, aiming, cocking, firing, reloading, etc. is all tracked on a board along with every other combatant. (Want to walk over there? That'll take you 5 seconds...Ooop, looks like on second three, McCoy is starting to pull his gun.. let's see, that takes him four seconds, so you have 2 seconds after you get there to start something else... etc..
By this kind of reasoning if 20% of atheists were complete jerks then none of atheism should be taken seriously.
As a dyed-in-the-wool Atheist who is occasionally a jerk, I can assure you that none of atheism should be taken seriously. :-)
Hee hee!
S.E. Cupp is pretty hot for a little rich girl.
... a pretty basic but very important observation of human nature...GOES WILD!
Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week. Try the veal. Tip your waitresses.
Hmmm....It would appear that I have partially succeeded in re-railing this thread. That is a new personal best for me.
Redacted some posts. Sorry, finding myself caught in a discussion where I'm being some sort of troll.
So... Have you Boot Hill lovers considered Aces and Eights[?
Deadlands seems to be a similar genre but it appears to be a much easier to learn and flowing system. Also, they have rules for allowing zombies to be in the game from the beginning. Link.
|
|
Deadlands seems to be a similar genre but it appears to be a much easier to learn and flowing system. Also, they have rules for allowing zombies to be in the game from the beginning. Link.Redacted some posts. Sorry, finding myself caught in a discussion where I'm being some sort of troll.
So... Have you Boot Hill lovers considered Aces and Eights[?
Deadlands is also D20.
[bullwinkle]This time for sure![/bullwinkle]
|
|
[bullwinkle]This time for sure![/bullwinkle]
Oh that is today. Did he give a time? or is it 7 pm west coast time again? or is this the rolling Apocalypse?
No Apocalypse here in Ohio........yet.
By the way I still have the image of Bullwinkle trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat and getting a lion eating him instead.
I still have the image of running my players through the campy 2nd ed. version of Castle Greyhawk, where they met an anthropomorphic squirrel and moose. The moose said "Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a Tarrasque out of my hat." There was only a 1% chance of success, and I rolled a naught-one.
Ah, good times...
Lamest apocalypse ever...again.
At least this time he picked a day that had a couple of natural disasters associated with it...he's getting closer.
|
|
If no man knows the day that Jesus will return, then couldn't a group of people permanently prevent His return just by stating that he will return everyday?The real kicker are the Apocalypse Christians who apparantly feel that it's their duty to make sure that the conditions are set up appropriately for Revelations to commence. For them that means that Israel is set up properly for the prophesised battle of Armegeddon. AND TO MAKE SURE IT TAKES PLACE.
Be careful that you don't lump too many varied views into the same grouping. Some feel that it is a warning of what not to do, they just are not as vocal about it all.
|
|
You know, so far I've slept through Apocalpyses (apocalypsi?) on August 8, 1988: September 9, 1999: New Year's Day, Easter, Christmas and New Year's Eve of both 2000 and 2001: one in 2004, if I remember correctly: and now, apparently, May 21, 2011. I am particularly looking forward to the Mayan one in 2012, since it will be my first Mayan End of the World.
So what you are saying is that Buffy has been doing her job?
Incidentally - I mean no disrespect to believers when I say that the reasoning behind "no man shall know the hour" is pretty shrewd when it comes to human psychology, but you have to admit it's kind of like hiding in a closet to scare somebody. Jesus always struck me as being too nice to do such a thing.GUY: So, I was talking to Marty about the turtles, you know...
GIRL: Uh huh, what'd he say?
(THE REDEEEMED abruptly ascend bodily into heaven and THE RIGHTEOUS DEAD burst from their graves. JESUS appears in the sky.
JESUS: Rejoice, My children, for I have returned.
GUY: Uh, you're interrupting, man.
JESUS: Oh, sorry. Go on. I love turtles.
Please keep in mind that this end of days stuff is a relatively new concept and not widely excepted outside of some specific groups. It just gets a lot of air time in the US.
Also no man will know the hour, you can always get hit by a bus.
So what you are saying is that Buffy has been doing her job?You know, so far I've slept through Apocalpyses (apocalypsi?) on August 8, 1988: September 9, 1999: New Year's Day, Easter, Christmas and New Year's Eve of both 2000 and 2001: one in 2004, if I remember correctly: and now, apparently, May 21, 2011. I am particularly looking forward to the Mayan one in 2012, since it will be my first Mayan End of the World.
Incidentally - I mean no disrespect to believers when I say that the reasoning behind "no man shall know the hour" is pretty shrewd when it comes to human psychology, but you have to admit it's kind of like hiding in a closet to scare somebody. Jesus always struck me as being too nice to do such a thing.
That would likely be because Jesus Christ did not intend for people to be so focused on the "end of the world" thing. By his teachings, he was/is vastly more interested in how people lived their own lives, their relationship with God, and how they cared for other people.
Yes, apocalyptic cults (and some more militant Evangelicals) seem to have forgotten these basic truths.
Wait, the end of the world happened?
...dang it. I've been going to work like normal!