Protestantism

» pink101 - In The Deconstructing Christianity Thread

.
In the Deconstructing Christianity thread, Wendell brings up the question of the right to eat.
.
We could, more or less, let the question rest as mere rhetoric; but, it brings an old sign to mind, "Arbeit macht frei", which translates as, "Work Makes Free." During the rise of the Nazi party's Third Reich, it was over the gate in a German concentration camp in which political prisoners were forced to work in order to eat. Those who did not perform work for the German War Machine were simply starved to death and their emaciated bodies were put in the incinerators to reduce the number of graves required. People who did not give their support to the "Cause" did not deserve to live.
.
Are we able, nearly three quarters of a century after Auschwitz, to discuss the implications of the statement Wendell made in that other thread?
.
Or is it too harsh for our gentle minds?
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» _Boanerges_ - In The Deconstructing Christianity Thread

In response to In The Deconstructing Christianity Thread posted by pink101:

The statement was made in reference to your statement of "deserves to be swept into Hell.

Play fair, Phil... or.. you will find this conversation will be derailed.. Add that to your list of ways...

Oh, and for fairness, why not quote the proper source.. If not, I will.. and believe me, that would be only repeating another thread....

:)

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Play Fair?

In response to In The Deconstructing Christianity Thread posted by _Boanerges_:
.
All I have done here is to expound on the idea of "a right to eat".
.
As far as I am concerned, it has nothing to do with playing fair or not. It's nothing against you; but, it questions an idea involved in the statement you made. Maybe the idea I bring up here was furthest from your mind? I accept responsibility for thinking the thoughts involved and I have not put them on you.
.
The reason we compartmentalize our subjects in threads is so that we can expound on any particular tangent that may come along. Some time ago you noted that most of the threads are started by me--could the reason be that instead of polluting a thread, I start the new thread as an appropriate way to handle some tangental thought I may have out of courtesy to the other participants? I think Migisi has the idea when she states if you don't have any interest in the thread, stay out. That's no biggie, is it?
.
These threads do not express one generalized discussion where cross talk from one to the other has any value.
.
It's easy enough to put any comment in the pertinent thread. Doing so enables us to stay on track.
.
Play fair, Phil... or.. you will find this conversation will be derailed.. Do I misunderstand what you're saying here? Are you threatening some action that will derail this thread from its intended course? Why? What is unfair about asking the question regarding who deserves to live and who deserves to die? Isn't that a big question we're asking in our nation's capitol these days? Isn't that the decision our president is making for us? Don't you deal with it in your many comments regarding certain conspiracy theories in which you imbibe? What do you mean, "Play fair"?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» _Boanerges_ - In The Deconstructing Christianity Thread

In response to In The Deconstructing Christianity Thread posted by pink101:

from post #18...

Phil: Is what you're saying actually one of the foundations of Christianity? How should we word it to have in our comprehensive picture of Christianity?

Wendell:
In post-modernism, I suppose it does not matter, as you are not really discussing Christianity. It appears you are only discussing what others claim to be Christianity.

Do we deserve anything? Here is a quick definition of 'deserve'

to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation: to deserve exile; to deserve charity; a theory that deserves consideration.
-verb (used without object)
2. to be worthy of, qualified for, or have a claim to reward, punishment, recompense, etc.: to reward him as he deserves; an idea deserving of study.

According to this definition, the only thing a Christian deserves is salvation, to which God commanded us to claim....

The bible does not teach the we "deserve Hell".. That is the false statement I mentioned. It does not really matter if you (meaning whoever) wish to mask it with what others claim. In this understanding, people claim all kinds of things.. this does make a thing so. As an example - a person has told me they do not believe that 40mph is right for a stretch of road that is a highway. They believe it should be 55. But, nonetheless, the law states that is is 40. It really matters not what a person claims, but rather, what is the fact of a matter.....

Otherwise, the topic of this conversation has no basis, nor merit, nor any real purpose, as the claims would never end..... nor would the conversation... That is, until the definition of 'post modern' changes... and by its very definition, it will. So then, in the end, the premise is vanity and ever changing. Accordingly, there can never be any truth in the ongoing discussion (as it relates to title thread) because of the very foundation of what post-modern stands for.....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Let Me Repeat My Self.

In response to In The Deconstructing Christianity Thread posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Let me repeat my self.
.
The reason we compartmentalize our subjects in threads is so that we can expound on any particular tangent that may come along. Some time ago you noted that most of the threads are started by me--could the reason be that instead of polluting a thread, I start the new thread as an appropriate way to handle some tangental thought I may have out of courtesy to the other participants? I think Migisi has the idea when she states if you don't have any interest in the thread, stay out. That's no biggie, is it?
.
These threads do not express one generalized discussion where cross talk from one to the other has any value.
.
It's easy enough to put any comment in the pertinent thread. Doing so enables us to stay on track.
.
-----------------------------------------------------------
.
Otherwise, we are reactionary.
.
Are you trying to make some point about who deserves to live and who deserves to die?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» _Boanerges_ - What do you mean, "Play fair"?

In response to In The Deconstructing Christianity Thread posted by pink101:

Comparing my statement, to your opening statement here, to what happened in Nazi Germany is pitiful....

Next time, do not include my name with your interest in subjects.

Play fair means what it says. If you decide not to play fair, then all gloves are off.... I will not respond to further inquiries concerning this subject.

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» _Boanerges_ - additionally - Play Fair?

In response to Play Fair? posted by pink101:

The reason we compartmentalize our subjects in threads is so that we can expound on any particular tangent that may come along.

I do not need (or want) any lectures from you, Phil....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - additionally - Play Fair?

In response to additionally - Play Fair? posted by _Boanerges_:
.
I do not need (or want) any lectures from you, Phil....
-- posted by _Boanerges_
.
Otay
.
I guess you think I need them from you.
.
lol
.

.
http://www.jamglue.com/tracks/11357-Jaws...
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds