Protestantism

» _Boanerges_ - You Missed, Big Guy

In response to You Missed, Big Guy posted by _Boanerges_:

"The subjunctive survives, though by no means consistently, in sentences with conditional clauses contrary to fact and in subordinate clauses after verbs like wish:"

If you are attempting to "deconstruct Christianity" why would you use 'subjunctives' when it is quite clear that such a usage is misleading and not at all related to deconstructionism. This is your topic not mine! This is merely practice for me (staying sharp on responding to bogus, bias, unsubstantiated claims...)

So far, what you have presented does not represent fact, evidence or proof..... and.. you believe you are tearing me apart! ...lol

If that makes you feel intellectually superior, thats kewl by me. However.... Any objective reader can read through the dishonesty....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Life Goes On

In response to You Missed, Big Guy posted by _Boanerges_:
.
You sure don't have to be involved in whatever takes place in this thread if it doesn't interest you.
.
You added some value with some information about deconstruction I guess you copied from one of your sources.
.
I appreciated that. I think I let you know that. I'm sorry that my presence is such a bother to you.
.
Life goes on.
.
Would you like to deal with the topic under consideration and help it get going or do you want to continue on a tangent. Personally, I would like to get on with the ten points as I have some small investments in the ideas involved--if it's okay with you.
.
You have made it very obvious in your demonstrations--that you have the know how--and the will to **** up a thread pretty well; so there isn't a lot of need for any more of those shenanigans. Unless, of course, that's what makes your day. If it is, keep it up. I'm sure everyone will be pleased with your show.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - Life Goes On

In response to Life Goes On posted by pink101:

You sure don't have to be involved in whatever takes place in this thread if it doesn't interest you.

I mentioned what does not interest me already. No need to repeat it!

You added some value with some information about deconstruction I guess you copied from one of your sources.

I copied it from Wikipedia..... a simple search can pull it up for any person who so chooses...

I appreciated that. I think I let you know that.

You might have... I'm glad you find appreciation in that...

I'm sorry that my presence is such a bother to you.

I am not bothered. I am used to people who make claims that are not true. Its the nature of things.. I do feel though that it is you who is bothered, in actuality and in reality. You simple cannot overcome my simple objective absolutes... I do believe it bothers you - immensely.. I say that because, those who are really bothered by such, continue to press upon the personal, and do not address the issues. This is typical behavior by the self-called - intellectual. But, in essence, and in fact, none are fooled...

Would you like to deal with the topic under consideration and help it get going or do you want to continue on a tangent.

Is there are topic under discussion? If so, I have yet to see any premises brought forward:

Premise
"Logic

1. One of the propositions in a deductive argument.
2. Either the major or the minor proposition of a syllogism, from which the conclusion is drawn."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/p...

Deductive argument
"A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/ded-ind.htm

Personally, I would like to get on with the ten points as I have some small investments in the ideas involved--if it's okay with you.

Yes.. In fact, I agree with Brian on your 10 points....

You have made it very obvious in your demonstrations--that you know how and the will--to **** up a thread pretty well; so there isn't a lot of need for any more of those shenanigans. Unless, of course, that's what makes your day.

As I said.. Its simple practice... So far, you have wasted a lot of time on the personal. Are you avoiding the obvious conclusion that your deductions are simply invalid?....

But please.. go ahead an make an objective deductive argument.... By all means.. (..smile...)

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» Brian Tubbs - Response to redback

In response to Bias posted by redback:

Good points. Part of the challenge with this thread is that different people have different perceptions as to what "Christianity" comprises. Are we talking about "Christianity" as it is understood today? If so, that's a pretty broad term that includes a lot of varying interpretations, disagreements, etc. Are we talking about the core, basic "Christianity" that emerged from the first century? That would be much more manageable, methinks.

» Brian Tubbs - Bias

In response to Bias posted by Migisi:

Not necessarily, Migisi. I read a lot of people I disagree with, and consult a lot of sources that don't line up with my POV. What I WOULD do - and do do - is identify 'pillars' or baseline presuppositions or prejudgments that different authors or scholars bring to the table. And then I call those out during discussions of their arguments.

For example, most liberal (and I use that label broadly and without any malice - but just for convenience) scholars of the New Testament period approach their studies with the assumption that supernatural miracles do not exist. They therefore automatically rule out any of Jesus' alleged miracles and either substitute naturalistic explanations or chalk the accounts up to embellishment. They do this automatically, without any consideration of the possibility that maybe - just maybe - Jesus DID walk on water or turn water into wine.

In my view, this presupposition against supernaturalism deserves to be called out. True scholarship, when dealing with a subject that claims supernatural dimensions, should reserve judgment on such things until the available evidence can be considered. Otherwise, it should admit its bias from the get-go and not pretend to command any intellectual high ground.

» _Boanerges_ - A Christian is

1: a follower of the historical Jesus as presented in the Bible.
2: hold to the essential teachings of the Bible.

Central Beliefs (from Columbia Encyclopedia)
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Christia.h...

"The central teachings of traditional Christianity are that
1- Jesus is the Son of God,
2- the second person of the Trinity of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit;
3- that his life on earth, his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension into heaven are proof of God's love for humanity and God's forgiveness of human sins;
4- and that by faith in Jesus one may attain salvation and eternal life (see creed).
This teaching is embodied in the Bible, specifically in the New Testament, but Christians accept also the Old Testament as sacred and authoritative Scripture.
2: Christian ethics derive to a large extent from the Jewish tradition as presented in the Old Testament, particularly the Ten Commandments, but with some difference of interpretation based on the practice and teachings of Jesus.
Christianity may be further generally defined in terms of its practice of corporate worship and rites that usually include the use of sacraments and that are usually conducted by trained clergy within organized churches.
There are, however, many different forms of worship, many interpretations of the role of the organized clergy, and many variations in polity and church organization within Christianity."

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» Brian Tubbs - Can we or should we deconstruct Christianity?

After reviewing the exchange between Wendell and Phil and looking over this thread thus far, I think that this thread is much, much too limited a forum to accomplish what Phil is trying to do. The reasons:

1. Most people, in our day and age, don't have the attention span or the TIME to sift through threads that run hundreds of posts - which is what this will end up being.

2. We need to define our parameters better. What "Christianity" do we mean? I suspect that everyone here has a different understanding of what "Christianity" means. It would help a little if we could roll back to the first century to at least narrow things down to the BASICS of Christianity - i.e, where and when it began. If instead we are going to chase all the spins, twists, denominations, etc. of Christianity from its 2000 year history, count me out. It's an impossible task for one thread.

3. There needs to be some agreement on the methods of deconstruction. First...is this going to be an academic, scholarly level discourse? If that's the desire, I think it's unrealistic for this thread. Discussions here at the Suite should be and are meant to be somewhat informal. (Hence, I see no problem with Wendell's "plagiarism." This isn't some peer review academic forum). More importantly, discussions should be family-friendly and in layman's terms. What's the point of carrying them on if people who come by can't understand them? I'm not calling our readers stupid, but we forget that most Internet surfers who come to discussion forums like this aren't looking for deep, extended scholarly discussions about deconstruction.

4. I don't agree with the list that's been developed here in this thread. And I'm not comfortable getting drawn into a discussion that is based on a premise I don't agree with. Phil is liable to accuse me of being 'afraid.' No offense, but I find accusations like that funny. I'm not the least bit afraid of any criticisms leveled against Christianity thus far in the history of Suite101. This isn't about fear. It's about frustration.

Bottom line...Christianity is about whether Jesus Christ is who the Bible says he is. Period. Is God real? Is Jesus the Son of God? Did he come into the world for the purpose of atoning for the sins of mankind? Was he crucified? Did he rise from the dead? Did he ascend into heaven? Are the biblical accounts of Jesus true?

THESE are the questions that speak to Christianity at its core. If these questions are to be answered in the negative, then NONE of the rest of this discussion matters.

» pink101 - I Can Accept You, Brian, As An Authoritative Figure Here

In response to Bias posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I can accept Brian as an authoritative figure when it comes to giving us the basic building blocks of Christianity. If, for no other reason, you are the one here with any credentials of merit.
.
I don't think it is necessary at this time to go into any fine detail of any of the required items--just listing them would be sufficient. Don't you agree at this point?
.
I take it from your previous comments that you do not agree with this list that we've been able to gather:
.
1. Bible/Revealed Word of God
.
2. Shame and Guilt
.
3. Condemnation
.
4. God's Rightousness for Humanity
.
5. Crucifixion of Jesus
.
6. Resurrection of Jesus
.
7. Deity of Jesus
.
8. The Great Commandment given by Jesus
.
9.God's Love for humanity
.
10. God as the omnipotent omniscient creator of all that is.
.
Maybe you can eliminate those you think are not required and build the list according to your thinking. Maybe some participants may want to question your choices and that seems okay to me. I'm sure you'll be able to give your reasoning.
.
Thanks.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Can we or should we deconstruct Christianity?

In response to Can we or should we deconstruct Christianity? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Apparently I was writing my previous post as you were posting yours to which I am responding here.
.
I understand the difficulty we've had getting this thread off the ground. I won't belabor that any further.
.
I don't think we're in a position to discuss Christianity other than the way it appears to be in the world today. A look at "Christianity" as it was in the first century could get us all into lengthy studies.
.
I think we need an agreement to let you be the spokesperson for Christianity as it is presented today. That doesn't mean that no one else has the right to suggest or to question anything; but, in the final run--you get to name the items involved.
.
As far as the ten items in the list are concerned, that was nothing more than an exercise in an attempt to get others to offer the items. None of the items were "mine" in any sense of the word as far as I'm concerned.
.
I think it would be great if you would put the effort into giving us some leadership in this thread. I know you are capable of that.
.
I have to add that Christianity, the way it appears today, includes Benny Hinn and John Haggee as well as Robert Schuler, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Inclusions

In response to Can we or should we deconstruct Christianity? posted by pink101:

I have to add that Christianity, the way it appears today, includes Benny Hinn and John Haggee as well as Robert Schuler, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson.

Yeah. And Jesse Jackson, Billy Graham, John Shelby Spong, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Hagin, T.D. Jakes, and on and on.
And those are just the authors and ministry leaders.