Church Shootings Today

[3nigma]

The funny thing about your post, gwprod, is that you took a certain piece of information, interpreted it through your own paradigm, and came up with a completely wrong conclusion.

 

Any person exercising critical thinking would actually have come to the opposite conclusion about these events.

 

1) Homeless dude shows up at church (with a hidden gun and motive), and needs "help"

2) Church people exercise discernment, and say "no"

3) They all get shot.

 

What is more likely?

 

A: They should have helped him, and all would be okay.

B: They used discernment and didn't feel comfortable letting this man into people's vulnerability zones, and judged 100% correctly: he was a murderer.

 

Use your God-given brain man, wow.

 

Are you serious?

 

Christians are supposed to care for people- correct. These people were caring for the protection of those who could be vulnerable to an uncomfortable outsider, and they were absolutely right.

 

Does this even make sense to you?

 

Talk about a no-brainer.

[PSPHax0r9]

The funny thing about your post, gwprod, is that you took a certain piece of information, interpreted it through your own paradigm, and came up with a completely wrong conclusion.

 

Any person exercising critical thinking would actually have come to the opposite conclusion about these events.

 

1) Homeless dude shows up at church (with a hidden gun and motive), and needs "help"

2) Church people exercise discernment, and say "no"

3) They all get shot.

 

What is more likely?

 

A: They should have helped him, and all would be okay.

B: They used discernment and didn't feel comfortable letting this man into people's vulnerability zones, and judged 100% correctly: he was a murderer.

 

Use your God-given brain man, wow.

 

Are you serious?

 

Christians are supposed to care for people- correct. These people were caring for the protection of those who could be vulnerable to an uncomfortable outsider, and they were absolutely right.

 

Does this even make sense to you?

 

Talk about a no-brainer.

 

Thanks, I was going to post something along those lines, but this guy's been too blinded with hating/criticizing religion I figured that it wouldn't do any good to insert rational thought into the discussion.

[gwprod12]

If you don't want to actually live the religion you're trying to force on everyone else... then DON'T. But don't pretend that you do.

 

As for these folks... If this guy came to my house and wanted help, I would have refused him too. But my job isn't to spread the word of Jesus. (You know, about loving thy neighbour as yourself, etc).

 

If you need me to draw you a diagram, so you can grasp what I just said, I'd be happy to.

 

[PSPHax0r9]

If you don't want to actually live the religion you're trying to force on everyone else... then DON'T. But don't pretend that you do.

See, that's the problem. You just don't get it. You're stereotyping an entire religion, thinking that by living out that religion, every member is trying to "force" their religion onto you. I'm sorry that you have such a flagrantly and glaringly wrong misconception and uneducated generalization of those who belong to religions. It's a shame that you allow a small part of a group represent the whole. I could say atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, all try to force their beliefs on me by belonging to religious institutions, but that's WRONG. They DON'T. A select few might, but representing the entire religion based on the actions of a few? How juvenile.

 

As for these folks... If this guy came to my house and wanted help, I would have refused him too. But my job isn't to spread the word of Jesus. (You know, about loving thy neighbor as yourself, etc).

So now everyone who follows Jesus is supposed to ignore common sense and human discretion? Or is that privilege only reserved for you? So you're saying that everyone who follows Jesus is supposed to live out his message perfectly? You do know that no human being is perfect, right? Right....?

 

If you need me to draw you a diagram, so you can grasp what I just said, I'd be happy to.

Yes, please. I would like you to draw me a diagram because I am not accustomed to generalizing entire groups of people based on a select few, and I need the help of an expert such as yourself to do so. So please, draw me that diagram. And please include the part in the Bible or Church teaching where it says to ignore common sense and logical thinking, because I was looking, and I can't seem to find it.

 

Your criticisms of religion are rash, immature prejudices based on a complete misrepresentation of everything that religion stands for.

 

 

 

[3nigma]

It's just hilarious, because it is so blatantly the 180 degree exact opposite of what he is trying to propose, lol. This thread is a complete joke; an insult to human intelligence and thoughtful discussion. You (gwprod) are one of the guys that slowly devolves his mental faculties to be worthy of a Darwin Award. Please, PLEASE, for the sake of saving your own face, PLEASE come up with SOMETHING.

I'm pretty sure it's from the bible... The four gospels, especially.

Not a single scripture that you quoted came from the gospels:

1 John 3:18

Deuteronomy 15:7

James 2:14

Proverbs 11:24

1 John 3:17

Hebrews 13:2

In exegesis, this is what is known as "prooftexting." Anyone can make up anything by prooftexting scriptures out of context.

 

I can literally quote the Bible itself to say that "God is not real." However, if you read it in context, it is in the book of Job where his friends are telling him "God is not real," but he is saying that God is real. This is a perfect example of poor hermeneutics.

So... especially considering the quote directly above... The peoples of Sodom, who treated guests with no hospitality came to ruin. This is in the bible, so clearly factual (according to Christians). Can it not also be said that the 4 people who threw up their arms to deny this man shelter came to ruin?

This is called inductive logic. Example:

 

1: My keyboard is black.

2: Therefore, all keyboards must be black.

 

As can obviously be seen, this is what is known as a logical fallacy. You:

 

1: Sodom showed no hospitality

2: Sodom came to ruin

3: These Christians showed no hospitality

4: Therefore, these Christians came to ruin

 

It doesn't hold up to scrutiny; or, common sense.

 

As a side note, that is not why Sodom was destroyed (that is a tangent subject that is not relevant to the topic).

Christians should read the bible.

People who attack Christianity and want to use the Bible should read the Bible.

 

Anyone can google "bible verses on hospitality" and produce the list that you just did.

 

Because you are not a theologian, I do not expect you to actually understand and practice these principles of interpreting scripture. However, you cannot parade a flag of pseudo-intellectuality when in fact you know only enough to reveal how little indeed you do actually know.

 

Mark Twain: “Tis better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

 

 

-3nigma

[gwprod12]

Mark Twain gives sage advice. Learn from it.

 

If you're defending your religion by saying it makes no mention whatsoever of helping people, and instead says to kick them while they're down, then it's a pretty crappy religion. Sorry to educate you to the reality.

 

If you do agree that Jesus himself implored people to help their neighbour, then what are you bitching about?

[apowerr]

And please include the part in the Bible or Church teaching where it says to ignore common sense and logical thinking, because I was looking, and I can't seem to find it.

I don't want to get involved in this argument, or take a side but I couldn't pass this up. I love in the Southern United States, also known as the Bible Belt. The majority of Christians here are protestant (i.e. not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) and they reject evolution as fact. An example of a church teaching that ignores logical thinking .

[PSPHax0r9]

I don't want to get involved in this argument, or take a side but I couldn't pass this up. I love in the Southern United States, also known as the Bible Belt. The majority of Christians here are protestant (i.e. not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) and they reject evolution as fact. An example of a church teaching that ignores logical thinking .

Wow, um no.

 

Because ignorance is practiced by members of a religion, that does not mean that it is Church teaching. Please, once again, show me what current Church teaching says to ignore scientific fact. In fact, the pope recently released a document about 6 months ago, in which he said that science and God can and should coexist without being opposing, but complementary. In it he mentions that evolution is the best theory we currently have for the development of life, and he basically condemns ignorance. This is just an example of a Catholic teaching, and I am 100% sure that there is absolutely no legitimate Christian teaching that promotes or condones ignorance.

 

Once again, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a Church teaching that supports ignorance and disregard for common sense.

[apowerr]

Because ignorance is practiced by members of a religion, that does not mean that it is Church teaching.

By church you seem to be referring to the Catholic Organization. I'm referring to the people in charge of local protestant churches in my area. I like Catholics, in the sense that they're more moderate.

[PSPHax0r9]

Mark Twain gives sage advice. Learn from it.If you're defending your religion by saying it makes no mention whatsoever of helping people, and instead says to kick them while they're down, then it's a pretty crappy religion. Sorry to educate you to the reality.If you do agree that Jesus himself implored people to help their neighbour, then what are you bitching about?

I don't think that he said that...Of course Jesus implored people to help their neighbor, however he also gave extreme value to human life. If, through rational and logical thinking (which is promoted by the Church, not condemned by it [i'm still waiting for someone to show me that teaching where it is]), they can determine that the man is not of correct mental facility, then it would be contrary to Jesus' message to put jeopardize their lives and the lives of everyone there. Also, would they have had proper lodgings for the man? Did they have any room for him? If they had let him in, wouldn't he have probably killed more people?

 

These are all questions not answered by the article, but I'm glad that you had the self-restraint and common sense not to jump to conclusions...oh, wait...

 

By church you seem to be referring to the Catholic Organization. I'm referring to the people in charge of local protestant churches in my area. I like Catholics, in the sense that they're more moderate.

Still, the teaching of one pastor or a small group is not official church teaching and does not represent the whole religion.

[gwprod12]

PHP: you're welcome to make an argument, attribute it to me, and knock it down. But it's just a waste of time.

 

I've made no such argument that a reasonable person would not have judged a nutter as a danger.

 

I've made no such argument that people with responsibilities to others should abbrogate their responsibilities in order to assist a crazy person.

 

The argument I've made is that, as I understand it, Christian teaching implores person X to assist person Y, often times to their own disadvantage. A person, who's role it is in society to bring the words of Jesus to the masses, be the heathen or not, would be a hypocrit to not BEHAVE in the way Jesus implored people to behave. History is rife with people not turning the other cheek, for example. It's irony, and it makes my belly jiggle like Ol' Saint Nick.

 

Do I turn the other cheek? Not always.

Do I go to the person who I have conflict with before I bring that conflict to others? Not always.

etc...

I'm not a Christian. I haven't declared myself an adherent to principles I don't have (or outright reject, as the case may be).

 

I just find it amusing that people declare The Bible to literally correct in every way, yet conveniently forget the portions that they don't like.

 

There are people who genuinely believe that the bible is a message of hope and love, and they put the principles that seem reasonable but also promote peace and caring into practice. Then there are others who insist that the bible is literally factual, do their utmost to force everyone to ascribe to it in one way or another, but practice not one whit of it. And the parts they do practice are interpreted so intensely so as to override the clear meaning.

[PSPHax0r9]

PHP: you're welcome to make an argument, attribute it to me, and knock it down. But it's just a waste of time.

 

I've made no such argument that a reasonable person would not have judged a nutter as a danger.

 

I've made no such argument that people with responsibilities to others should abbrogate their responsibilities in order to assist a crazy person.

 

The argument I've made is that, as I understand it, Christian teaching implores person X to assist person Y, often times to their own disadvantage. A person, who's role it is in society to bring the words of Jesus to the masses, be the heathen or not, would be a hypocrit to not BEHAVE in the way Jesus implored people to behave. History is rife with people not turning the other cheek, for example. It's irony, and it makes my belly jiggle like Ol' Saint Nick.

Um, you just made that argument again. The exact one I said you did.

 

You're saying that you should help people even when common sense and good judgment dictates otherwise, and you are not reserving any judgments for what the circumstances around his rejection could have been. So, in essence, you are saying that because they did not blindly accept a mentally unstable person into who knows what condition of a place they were in, they are acting contrary to the teachings of Jesus? No. Not at all.

 

You still have an underdeveloped view of religion as this strict, "everything is black-and-white" society. This is wrong. There will not always be a clear "right" or "wrong" in a situation, especially like this, so who are you to judge? Who are you to suddenly decide the circumstances without proper information? Who are you to revel and laugh and find enjoyment in the deaths of innocent people?

 

Do I turn the other cheek? Not always.

Do I go to the person who I have conflict with before I bring that conflict to others? Not always.

etc...

I'm not a Christian. I haven't declared myself an adherent to principles I don't have (or outright reject, as the case may be).

Quite frankly, what you believe is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

I just find it amusing that people declare The Bible to literally correct in every way, yet conveniently forget the portions that they don't like.

Wow, so, once again, you're doing EXACTLY what I called you out n before. Nice. You are still stereotyping an entire religion off a MINORITY group (which doesn't make ANY logical sense, as most generalizations would logically come from the MAJORITY...) - fundamentalists. All of a religion is not fundamentalist, no matter how convenient it would be to your distorted viewpoint.

 

There are people who genuinely believe that the bible is a message of hope and love, and they put the principles that seem reasonable but also promote peace and caring into practice. Then there are others who insist that the bible is literally factual, do their utmost to force everyone to ascribe to it in one way or another, but practice not one whit of it. And the parts they do practice are interpreted so intensely so as to override the clear meaning.

The Bible ONLY teaches principles and messages of hope and love. You can pick out old, outdated, unremoved lines from former time periods, but the function of the Bible is to provide overall messages and guidelines. Some people who do not know this inaccurately and stupidly criticize the Bible for having a couple lines that are completely outrageous. What they conveniently choose to ignore is the context of the lines, and how they are just part of an overall message or principle conveyed in that part.

 

Once again here you imply that most people are fundamentalists that try to push their religion on everyone, which is scientifically statistically wrong. But, hey, who needs statistics or legitimate information when stereotyping, right?

[gwprod12]

PHP:

 

I'm not implying anything. At all. All implications you are reading are coming from you.

 

In no way am I stating that people should do stuff that is unsafe or against common sense. In fact, I'm stating that people SHOULD do stuff that is safe and pro-common sense.

 

Giving all of your goods to people who need them is against common sense, and against the giver's material existence. So, if I'm going to behave reasonably and keep what I need to survive for me alone, would it be equally reasonable to instruct other people to do the opposite? (such as donate their material posessions to the church I'm on a mission from?)

 

I don't think letting crazy drunk homeless people inside my house is a good idea. I don't think anyone should do that. Should I deny crazy homeless people my food and shelter, but instruct other people to give crazy homeless people food and shelter? That is against reason.

 

You attack me for saying that these folks should have let a crazy, violent homeless person inside their house. I've NEVER said that. If you want to attack me, attack me for saying that they shouldn't let crazy homeless people in their house, AND shouldn't advocate a belief system that implores it's followers to let crazy homeless people inside their house.

 

People can believe as they like. If God or whomever implores you to tend to the sick etc, then that's fine. There may be consequences, and people should know there are, and accept them as part of the job (like being a firefighter or policeman). If God or whomever implores you to spread his belief, that's fine too. If God implores you to tell other people how they should love one another and tend to the sick etc, that's good stuff! But to spread the message of peace and compassion to the masses, while having none yourself... that's dispicable. And charlatanism.

 

With any luck, you'll finally get what I've just said, and stop saying "You just contradicted yourself, you keep saying reasonable people let danger into their house, and I say that's a logical falacy".

 

As for lumping everyone into a specific belief system. I haven't and dont. I don't assume all Christians are bloodsucking vampires with more false piety than good works. I don't assume all Christians are sheep eagerly bleating to be fleeced. I don't assume all Christians hate their neighbours. I don't assume all Christians are hypocrites. I don't even assume these specific Christians are hypocrites. I think it merely looks that way.

 

And so you don't choose to define "not all" as "almost all", I will define ALL as "any specific" and you can adjust the word order and agreement to make that make sense.

 

As for people believing the Bible in it's entirety is the unblemished word of God, is totally inerrant and relevant... then all pieces are totally inerrant and relevant. Not just the ones we like and dislike. When someone quotes the leviticus passage about homosexuality as factual and true, but wears a polyblend, I call them a hypocrite. I do not propose that all people believe the bible is inerrant and relevant. I propose that some people believe the bible is inerrant and relevant. I also do not propose that all people take passages from the bible, twist and turn them until they prove what they want to do is "God's word". I only propose that some people do that.

 

So, please stop twisting my words into what you can call false. Call what I say false, or correct, or say nothing. For the love of Buddha.

 

As for 3nigma's comment about twisting the bible to suit your own position. That wasn't what I had intended, only as evidence that different passages CAN be interpreted in wildly differing ways, and thus have no real scope in the temporal plane.

 

I'm done and moving to other topics. Thanks

[3nigma]

Mark Twain gives sage advice. Learn from it.

 

If you're defending your religion by saying it makes no mention whatsoever of helping people, and instead says to kick them while they're down, then it's a pretty crappy religion. Sorry to educate you to the reality.

 

If you do agree that Jesus himself implored people to help their neighbour, then what are you bitching about?

Ouch, looks like I struck a nerve. Sorry gwprod, did I hit a soft spot?

You attack me for saying that these folks should have let a crazy, violent homeless person inside their house. I've NEVER said that. If you want to attack me, attack me for saying that they shouldn't let crazy homeless people in their house, AND shouldn't advocate a belief system that implores it's [sic] followers to let crazy homeless people inside their house.

The point that is trying to be made here, gwprod, is that Christianity is not a belief system that implores its followers to let crazy, homeless people inside their house.

I don't even assume these specific Christians are hypocrites. I think it merely looks that way.

Whether you intend to or not, you actually do. Just something to consider. (Sincerely.)

 

To gwprod and all others on this forum, you are neither philosophers nor theologians, so any attempt at either is honestly laughable. If I am in a conversation with a mathematician, I am not going to try to sound like I know what I am talking about, because I would look stupid: I stopped math as soon as I could, even though I was always advanced in it.

 

In the same respect, nobody here (agnostics/atheists) sincerely, truly, genuinely understands the tenets of the Christian faith. In the same way that I only understand the broad points of Islam and can make broad generalizations, that is what the agnostic/atheists here do of Christianity.

 

As I said before: You only know enough to give away how little you actually do indeed know.

 

So for the sake of these debates, for the sake of saving your own face, it is in your best interest to stop as soon as possible. You come across as someone who is very naive upon the subject to which they are attempting to speak authoritatively on, further instilling doubt into every word you write.

 

For your own sake, learn. You sound like an oaf.

 

-3nigma

[gwprod12]

Adhom. Stop.

[PSPHax0r9]

PHP:

 

I'm not implying anything. At all. All implications you are reading are coming from you.

 

In no way am I stating that people should do stuff that is unsafe or against common sense. In fact, I'm stating that people SHOULD do stuff that is safe and pro-common sense.

 

Giving all of your goods to people who need them is against common sense, and against the giver's material existence. So, if I'm going to behave reasonably and keep what I need to survive for me alone, would it be equally reasonable to instruct other people to do the opposite? (such as donate their material posessions to the church I'm on a mission from?)

No it isn't, because, for most people, giving helps to better fulfill a person. Doing service also does this. However, letting a crazy homeless guy into your house does not help fulfill you, it helps to kill you.

 

I don't think letting crazy drunk homeless people inside my house is a good idea. I don't think anyone should do that. Should I deny crazy homeless people my food and shelter, but instruct other people to give crazy homeless people food and shelter? That is against reason.

No one is instructing you to do that unless you have the proper means necessary to keep both yourself and everyone involved safe (i.e. homeless shelter).

 

You attack me for saying that these folks should have let a crazy, violent homeless person inside their house. I've NEVER said that. If you want to attack me, attack me for saying that they shouldn't let crazy homeless people in their house, AND shouldn't advocate a belief system that implores it's followers to let crazy homeless people inside their house.

Wow. You still, STILL, don't get it, do you? I'll try to make this very clear. No religious belief system implores its followers to go against common sense and reason and their right to life and the protection of others' lives (i.e. by letting a crazy homeles person into your house and you ar enot equipped to deal with them and fear for your life) to follow its principles of peace, love, hospitality. Hospitality does not mean that you let someone into your house who you do not have the means to support, and who does not seem mentally stable insofar that you fear for your life. In fact, this would be inhospitable.

 

People can believe as they like. If God or whomever implores you to tend to the sick etc, then that's fine. There may be consequences, and people should know there are, and accept them as part of the job (like being a firefighter or policeman). If God or whomever implores you to spread his belief, that's fine too. If God implores you to tell other people how they should love one another and tend to the sick etc, that's good stuff! But to spread the message of peace and compassion to the masses, while having none yourself... that's dispicable. And charlatanism.

Once again, you still don't understand. Peace and compassion do not exclude the human discretion necessary to evaluate the acceptance of a potentially harmful person into your home. True peace and compassion in that case would be caring for the safety of those already in the place. Yet you, once again, neglect this when describing some narrow, black-and-white view of peace and compassion. Compassion is caring for others. If you truly cared for others, you would forgo the housing of one to protect the lives and security of the many.

 

With any luck, you'll finally get what I've just said, and stop saying "You just contradicted yourself, you keep saying reasonable people let danger into their house, and I say that's a logical falacy".

That was never my point. My point was that religion does not tell a person to forgo common sense and human discretion necessary for their survival and the survival and well-being of others. I've stated this multiple times, but you choose to ignore it, and come up with a completely misconstrued point, when you could have just actually looked at what I've been saying...

 

As for lumping everyone into a specific belief system. I haven't and dont. I don't assume all Christians are bloodsucking vampires with more false piety than good works. I don't assume all Christians are sheep eagerly bleating to be fleeced. I don't assume all Christians hate their neighbours. I don't assume all Christians are hypocrites. I don't even assume these specific Christians are hypocrites. I think it merely looks that way.

"I think it merely looks that way." From what evidence can you possibly draw that conclusion from? I see no real evidence here to make a conclusion or an observation like that, so it MUST be labelled an "assumption."

 

And so you don't choose to define "not all" as "almost all", I will define ALL as "any specific" and you can adjust the word order and agreement to make that make sense.

Yet you still say that it seems to appear to you (or "looks that way") that any specific Christian is all the things you listed above.

 

As for people believing the Bible in it's entirety is the unblemished word of God, is totally inerrant and relevant... then all pieces are totally inerrant and relevant. Not just the ones we like and dislike.

No, it is possible that they are a means to the end messages and lessons and guidelines found in the Bible. It is possible that thse phrases are still perfect because they draw attention to the language to make you look more deeply at the overall message to see why this outrageous statement would be made. It is in this way that every word can still be the word of God, can still be perfect, as they perfectly in varying ways convey overall truths through a variety of general, specific, and controversial statements.

When someone quotes the leviticus passage about homosexuality as factual and true, but wears a polyblend, I call them a hypocrite.

OK, so if one person does this, how does this relate to your overall point aboutt he religion in general, or the specific incident mentioned in the article?

I do not propose that all people believe the bible is inerrant and relevant. I propose that some people believe the bible is inerrant and relevant. I also do not propose that all people take passages from the bible, twist and turn them until they prove what they want to do is "God's word". I only propose that some people do that.

So, if some people do this, which is obvious...once again, how does this relate to your overall point or anything in this thread? So basically, you've managed to state that there are some people in a religion who are fundamentalists. Thanks for that. You've managed to state that there are people who exist who are part of a religion who try to impose their beliefs on others. Right, because no one knew that before.

 

So, please stop twisting my words into what you can call false. Call what I say false, or correct, or say nothing. For the love of Buddha.

I'm not twisting your words, you're twisting mine. I try to tell you that religion and human discretion are not mutually exclusive, and you go on to say that I somehow said that reasonable people won't do things contrary to common sense? Nope.

 

I'm done and moving to other topics. Thanks

Good, I was getting tired of repeating my point over and over and over again, only to have you completely disregard the point and go off on random tangents that do not lead you back to any concurrent point or in any way justify enjoying the deaths of innocent people.

[gwprod12]

I'm only going to address one point, and that is the crux of the matter.

 

You say that religion doesn't trump reason. I agree that it shouldn't. Unfortunately, it quite often does. (Some) People do things constantly which they believe to be right, but reason would tell them damages society, disadvantages them, can lead to their own personal injury, etc.

 

It's probably just an issue of perspective. What is Christianity useful for if it must bow down before reason? That's my overriding point. I guess, if you took The Bible and stripped away every part that had to do with how to behave, you wouldn't have much besides "Believe in me... you will go to heaven... if you don't... you won't" because everything else has been subjugated to common sense and self-interest.

 

Or, maybe a better way of putting it is... what is the difference between myself, who acts out of reasonable self-interest and a Christian missionary who acts out of reasonable self-interest? Aside from the "God's great, let's sing" part, there isn't much.

 

I'm not a religious scholar, or a historian by profession. But did not Jesus get crucified because instead of being reasonably self-interested and shutting up, he antagonized the powers that be to spread a message? I guess it's overly simplistic, and 3nigma would say "You're not a Christian, therefore you're ignorant and stupid", but that's the main theme I get.

[3nigma]

I don't even assume these specific Christians are hypocrites. I think it merely looks that way.

Whether you intend to or not, you actually do. Just something to consider. (Sincerely.)

Adhom. Stop.

You say that religion doesn't trump reason. I agree that it shouldn't. Unfortunately, it quite often does. (Some) People do things constantly which they believe to be right, but reason would tell them damages society, disadvantages them, can lead to their own personal injury, etc.

 

It's probably just an issue of perspective. What is Christianity useful for if it must bow down before reason?

Again, you are making broad generalizations about a large minority of Christians (fundamentalists) that does not apply to the whole. This is a trend that you have a tendency to accidentally do, whether you realize it or not, as seen in the above-quoted posts. Ad hom or no, the discrepency in understanding here lies in your mistaken application of overarching-labels regarding fundamentalism, and imputing those onto mainstream Christianity.

 

Religion should not trump reason, correct. Neither does it, in proper Christianity. Fundamentalists are ignorant people that suppress their mental faculties in order to inflate their so-called "faith." However, this is unique to this subsection of Christianity.

 

Christianity practiced Biblically is exceedingly stressing of "loving the Lord with all your mind." Reason and faith go hand in hand, complementing one another as opposed to conflicting with one another (as the fundamentalists would propose). This is where you find men like C. S. Luis, and Alister McGrath (among thousands others). The Ivy League institutions of higher education in the US were all founded by Christians, before fundamentalism took root and began to neglect such rigorous intellectual pursuits. (See my other post on this subject for extensive references via links for this information).

 

I, myself, am merely an agnostic that has been reasonably convinced of the authenticity of Jesus' message. Take note of the important emphasis on "reasonably."

 

You would find that your distaste for fundamentalism (which you accidentally apply to all Christianity) is equally disdained within orthodox Christianity itself. It is indeed as you said, an issue of perspective; albeit the perspective that needs remedy is your own.

I'm not a religious scholar, or a historian by profession.

We know.

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist the window of opportunity.

3nigma would say "You're not a Christian, therefore you're ignorant and stupid", but that's the main theme I get.

I denounce and detest ignorance in all forms, whether from Christians or otherwise.

 

The biggest mistake one can make is to be uneducated and naive, which is how ignorance can be effectively defined.

 

Any student of the mind who exercises intellectual responsibility will operate off of more than basic presuppositions and naivety.

 

I would never accuse you of being ignorant for simply not being a Christian. Unfortunately, the truth is far more stinging: I accuse people of being ignorant for not knowing and understanding the topics upon which they are discussing, regardless of their position.

 

Some of the greatest New Testament scholarship of the 20th century came from scholars who did not subscribe to the faith upon which the text that they studied teaches. This does not make them any less informed on the subject.

 

Perhaps 'naivety' will be a more appropriate denotation in the future, rather than the loaded-connotations of 'ignorance,' misplaced as they may be.

 

Continue in your distates for fundamentalism, but study genuine Christianity- the faith to which even the most intellectual academics intertwine their reason within. You will discover a fascinating depth and vastness that is unknown to even many Christians themselves, these same fundamentalists that we all so unitedly disown.

 

-3nigma

[gwprod12]

Ad hominem is forbidden by Forum Guidelines. And it's just sad practice. Stop.

[3nigma]

gwprod, you are merely attempting to sidestep the issue for a lack of argument.

 

I have not made any personal attacks, I merely attack ideas and how they are presented. In this instance, I am arguing the fact that there are no ideas that anyone can come up with. The term "ignorance" is misconstrued to be a personal assault, when if you correctly understand the word, it merely refers to a lack of knowledge regarding a subject. I often give the disclaimer of myself to be ignorant on subjects in a conversation, deliberately signaling that I should not be expected to be up-to-par in a discussion. However, as I mentioned before, if the term "ignorance" is outside the vocabulary of this community, perhaps "naivety" will be a less connotative substitute.

 

You are waving a red flag to cause a diversion, when in reality it is further substantiating my point that there is nothing that can be said in order to provide an adequate rebuttal for my points. If you are realizing the arguments you are up against and conceding, I don't blame you. I respect you for knowing when you are outside of your knowledge zone, most people are incapable of such, and are insistent that they are authorities on all subjects. However, you can bow out of the conversation with more tact than the little boy crying wolf.

 

You can now actually read my previous post.

 

-3nigma