Protestantism

» pink101 - Wrong, Pink, Wrong

In response to Wrong, Pink, Wrong posted by pink101:
.
This thread may be an example of where Absolutists are unable to articulate ideas outside their venue of thought.
.
You think?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Banging my head against the desk

Picture a grown man banging his head on the desk and that's me right now.

Pink, enough! Stop trying to stir things up and drag other people (like me) into the ongoing 'war' you've got going with Wendell. I'm not afraid of Wendell turning on me. I'm not intimidated by ANYONE here, for that matter.

Wendell and I don't agree on everything. I think he's way off his rocker on the conspiracy stuff, for example, and he knows it. And, you know what? I don't think he's going to be the least bit offended at my saying he's "off his rocker."

Migisi, I've TRIED to put forward my suggestions on how we can approach "deconstructing" Christianity. Nicene Creed... remember?????

BrotherJones, I appreciate and respect your criticisms concerning the Nicene Creed. But can we at least agree it's preferable to start there as an early church statement of faith rather than use the cobbled together, meandering list that has been put forward in this thread??? (My head-banging frustration is not against you, though. I respect where you're coming from. I just want you to see what I'm dealing with).

» pink101 - Banging my head against the desk

In response to Banging my head against the desk posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I will let it go one more time. When it starts up again, I will let you know.
.
Why don't you just speak--generally--to the idea of misrepresentation?
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - Banging my head against the desk

In response to Banging my head against the desk posted by BrianTubbs:

Wendell and I don't agree on everything. I think he's way off his rocker on the conspiracy stuff, for example, and he knows it.

That is true, unfortunately.. but....

And, you know what? I don't think he's going to be the least bit offended at my saying he's "off his rocker."

Not at all Brian! These things do not separate those who are grounded on a firm foundation. I do appreciate your efforts here, and glad you are here with us - even though you think Im off my rocker (for being a tin hatter!! hehe..)... But seriously, that has nothing to do with our belief in Absolute Truth, i.e., Jesus is the absolute truth. I am a nondenominational... but.. if I were to choose one, I would probably be a Fire and Brimstone Baptist!

So.. no.. I am not offended at all. In fact, you did not say anything about me personally, only my belief in a thing. I believe that most people cannot separate the two, and thus, results in all the problems were see here (in a small way) and in the world in general.

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - 7:42 E.D.L.S.T.

.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Banging my head against the desk

In response to Banging my head against the desk posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Migisi, I've TRIED to put forward my suggestions on how we can approach "deconstructing" Christianity. Nicene Creed... remember?????
.
Sure I remember. But that turned into a discussion on the Creed itself, and not really about the point by point tenets of Christianity. I thought the idea of an informal list of points where everybody had the opportunity for input was pretty good. But whatever.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - 7:42 E.D.L.S.T.

In response to 7:42 E.D.L.S.T. posted by pink101:

I have no idea what EDLST stands for, and I probably don't want to know.

» Brian Tubbs - Misrepresentation

In response to Banging my head against the desk posted by pink101:

For the record...to deliberately misrepresent someone's position and then demolish that reconstructed position in a way that embarrasses them (or is designed to) is a very inflammatory and obnoxious thing to do. It's also very, very common. What you're basically accusing Wendell of is erecting a strawman and then pummeling it - to make himself look good and you look foolish.

I understand what you're saying. Here are the challenges...

1. It's common. It happens so often throughout our society - including in the news every day. And all the time in the Internet. I'm not saying common makes it right, but I AM saying that it's common - so common that it has woven its way into our psyche to where we sometimes do it ourselves and don't even know it.

2. It's debatable. One person says they were taken out of context or misrepresented. The other says 'not so.' And it goes back and forth, back and forth, and can get ugly and personal really quick. And we've seen that here. And we see it played out in the news all the time.

3. I don't have the time to comb through all the posts in all the threads to analyze and decipher whether someone misrepresented the other.

My advice (and this is to MYSELF as well)...

If someone misrepresents you (and I mean "you" as in anybody here, not just Pink), then call them on it - and move on. There's no point in getting into a back-and-forth shoving match over it.

» redback - Fair dinkum!

In response to Fair dinkum! posted by pink101:

"I'd just as soon be back there with you..."

How can Pink re-qualify to re-join 'dumb and dumber'? ABC

"You seem to be mostly like an American to me" Aaarrgghh!!

I'm happy for Australia to proudly lag behind the USA, for me to proudly lag behind what passes for USA groupthink in these contemporary or deconstructionist times. BTW: I've now lived long enough to get me my Seniors Card...what a milestone I've passed!! It exhorts others to "Please extend every courtesy and assistance." to an alleged valued member of our community." as I see my house being targetted by graffiti. Just now call me 1450318. I have been known at times as 225-45023 while working and 280623 while soldiering.

"...Do you think?"

You re-ask the same question of me. The "?" doesn't make it rhetorical. I'm not Christianity's advocate nor a proponent of 'useless adviocacy'**. **That's where one might say: "Brian...you're absolutely the meanest person I know...can you lend me $10?" ABC

The concept of 'faith' is interesting. It presupposes a person does not rely on knowledge or pre-requisite facts capable of 'audit'. The fact some may not articulate that well to me IMO or get a tad shaky in faith IMO or need more 'fact' than others or rely unduly on Bible bytes over arguable context IMO, doesn't cancel out the phenomenon...of 'faith'.

Even this beige heathen-type needs purpose. So, academics aside, who pursues a meaning of some theoretical global concept called Christianity and for what purpose? It's way up there in maybe trying to assess what an "average" worldwide Christian is...or isn't. I don't seek an 'average' ideal nor limit myself to common sense.

"Join up - I have absolutely no idea what benefit it'll be to you on Earth and/or you can't be told until your membership is believed."

"...really don't have a good grasp..."

Really, who has a better comparative grasp of...anything? If I said you were more skilled/intelligent than I, what possible measure could I have used? I only get your sound bytes here...and you mine. And as I don't come here to test any posters, much potential point-scoring is lost to the judge.

And as most of the world exists outside the USA I don't even come here for an authoritative worldview.

-- posted by redback

» redback - Banging my head against the desk

In response to Banging my head against the desk posted by Migisi n all:

The list re-visited:

1. Bible, sole foundational belief authority.
2. Bible: sources of true history, divine instruction, inspiration & forewarning.
3. Jesus: Belief in identity, role and crucifixion purpose
4. Concept of a personal God
5: Christianity/Christians historical and current role on Earth
(6: Christianity's interventions into society vs society's inclusion of people who just happen to be Christian.)
7: Christianity - Christian God - world's only true god.

Deniability and accountability? One argument surrounds perceived and real wrongs in the name of Christianity so these questions per point 5,6. One argument surrounds what is the range of best-to-wrong, Biblical interpretations - point 1-4. Same for what can be isolated as history only, what is inspirational (not didactic instruction)

Theory vs practice is point 5-6. What non-Christians disagree with is not a part of Christianity. Is it an inclusive or exclusive faith? Is it a faith worth joining despite the claimed risks for non-members.

While tis how I'd re-do the list, my purpose in proceeding seems a tad out of sync with all others.

-- posted by redback