[PUG] Christiantiy

[Barnabas]

That's where I'm lost. I don't know what point Shai was referring to, and I don't know why you thought that it had to do with self control. That only came in with your defense of the passage, and was not mentioned by Shai until after you brought it up as if it had been.

I believe I had proved the point that that verse had to do with self control, if I had proven my point and shai point was also proven then the points would have to be the same and since I believe the point was proven that it was about Self control that where shai point must have been also.

That and I was being a bit snarky. which is why I mention Shai's point as the opposite as mine.

 

[acd]

To clarify for my own self...

Shai doesn't think women should remain silent as the Paul instructs women to do while in Church. Barnabas disagrees by saying something to the effect of "You think it's inappropriate for people to exercise self control?" It's a senseless remark, indicating that people who disagree with scripture don't believe in practicing self control. It was meant to be a jab.

There are a zillion other misogynist instances and verses to look up in scripture, regardless of how liberal the Church has become today. Today's church has deviated from the path the scriptures prescribe, so it's baseless to argue about female ministers anyway. Like any religion, the beliefs and values change as the culture does.

 

[Barnabas]

well the debate isn't about what shai thinks women should do, it's about what paul instructs and the meaning behind the instructions.

However I do admit that the comment I made was more or less foolish, but I do stand by my point that the focus of 1st Tim. 2 is about self-control not about women being told to sit down and shut up.

 

[Shai Gar]

Okay, that is it.
It has been ages since I laid a true smack down in an argument, for the sake of peace I have mostly held back in Christian threads. I am going to pick this thread, and christianity apart completely and then rip apart your arguments, and finally bring my own arguments to bear.

You have no idea what I am saying, and you are trying to argue from ignorance.

 

[Barnabas]

Okay, that is it.
It has been ages since I laid a true smack down in an argument, for the sake of peace I have mostly held back in Christian threads. I am going to pick this thread, and christianity apart completely and then rip apart your arguments, and finally bring my own arguments to bear.

You have no idea what I am saying, and you are trying to argue from ignorance.

your argument, from what you said is that based on first Timothy chapter two verse fourteen shows that Chrsitianity is oppresive towards women, if this is wrong then please correct me.

 

[the]

Christianity^tm^. Which version of Christianity will you be ripping apart? I'd like to know.

 

[Shai Gar]

Christianity, as based on its only holy book.

Anyone that strays from the book is not a Christian.

 

[Barnabas]

Christianity, as based on its only holy book.

Anyone that strays from the book is not a Christian.

then you would exclude catholicism which holds Church tradition and to some extent papal authority on par with Scripture.

and I would also like to reiterate my question, if I was off about what was being discussed about in the previous posts then what was the original intent?

 

[Superpurple]

Religious quarrel Sweet!
Barnabas Dude I like you spunk but these guys see the bible as non sense and they are set in there ways.
Shai ENTP sweet! its fun isn't it you know what I Mean I know you do.
As for the rest of you I see a common theme the oh I am so beyond that biblical mumbo jumbo only a mentally handy capped person could get so caught up look at the books that were put in taken out like similar books that were re written blah blah blah I am so going davinci code on this guys ass blah. Ok first and formost we are a product of our expirence and environment, and being that the majority of the people on this site and everyone reading this was raised in a westen thinking culture you can't help it, but you are biased. Sorry. and being biased your points a null and void. What is worse is that there is a part of you that feels that barnabas is right and you hate feeling that way. To deny that is to say you do not believe in your own thoughts and Ideas because they are part of who you are being raise in a western culture. They only way you could deny that is if you were a non western thinking culture. Again Sorry. Except you Shai I am guessing you are here to have fun and see how you can manipulate the conversation into something more to you likeing. Oh and people of Eastern culture typically don't argue like this because they don't nessisarily believe in who is right or wrong they believe they are just different views that are both equally correct. So the eastern culture guys would not be here in the discussion wasting their time.
Sorry about the spelling and grammar, no actually thats a lie I really don't care.
Thank you come again!

 

[Satya]

What an amusing debate so far.

I will say that while I can respect a Christian's right to believe what they will, I abhor how little consideration Christians actually seem to give the origins of what they believe. The Bible was a book that was complied by men who got together to debate and vote on what books should go in and which should not about 300 years after Jesus allegedly died. How much thought does the average Christian actually give as to whether some books/letters deserve to be in the Bible or not? You will notice that nowhere in the Bible does it say that God said the Bible should be created or does God provide any input as to what should go into it. The process by which the book was complied and edited, was purely perpetrated by men with a political agenda.The books that were included are far from the only books and letters that existed at the time, they were just hand picked to push the political agenda of the assembly.

Even the four Gospels were written 70-90 years after Jesus allegedly died. And do you honestly think that Paul expected his letters to end up in some "holy" scripture? By what authority do his letters even deserve to be in the Bible? Because he said he had a vision? Thousands of crackpots every year say they have had visions. Why not follow the visions of Joseph Smith? Even books in the old testament are not as they appear. There is strong evidence that the Torah was written by 5 men living at different times, not just 1.

But do Christians ever think of this stuff? No! Why actually think about the origins of their religious beliefs? Is it not more beneficial to just have faith that a book complied by random men who lived some 1700 years ago is the infallible word of God?

I knew one Christian who did take the time to explore the origins of the Bible and who took the time to decide for himself what messages were undying truth and which simply were the views of men who lived in ancient times. He is in El Salvador now working disaster relief. To me, that seems considerably more in line with what Jesus would have taught than the sexist ramblings of Paul that some people seem to feel are worth defending in the name of "self control".

 

[Siamese cat]

^^This and I'd like to add one more thing that most of the people seem to forget (at least I haven't seen that in any of previous pages of this thread), Bible wasn't written in English, and from the moment when it was written until now there's been numerous translations of it. The ones who are somewhat well versed in using more than one language will easily recognize that even the slightest mistake in translation can change the meaning dramatically.

 

[the]

Christianity, as based on its only holy book.

Anyone that strays from the book is not a Christian.

Which collection? Deuterocannonical or no?

 

[Krumplenump]

When you are environment though (like here for instance), where people are not going to be so blind to their belief systems and then try to impose it upon you, it is unnesscarry and in a way unfair to go out of your way to try and tell people what they believe is incorrect. Moral duty or not, take into concideration to the person on the other end. Not everyone is going to cause a problem with what they believe, by you going after them, you could be causing unnesscarry and unfair pain for them. You are letting your own judgements on what you feel is correct get in the way, which is really not much better then extremely religious folks.

Well, I am not in a place like there, and even though I may be debating with people who are, I am not letting my judgements on what I feel is correct 'get in the way' - in the way of what I might add? Civil discussion?

You are basically appealing to me that I should deal with religious people as though our two opposing arguments hold 50-50 ground for the sake of 'not offending' the other person. I'm sorry but I am not going to alter my entire method just so I don't offend someone who wishes to debate and defend religion and who holds beliefs that are practically beyond all reasonable doubt totally unlikely.

Besides, I'd like to add that I only am what could be construed as 'offensive' to those like Barnabas, whos views display the pure bigotry and cocky certainty that religion loves to flaunt. I do not go seeking out those individuals who are privately religious and who don't throw their ideals all over the place in the hope to mock them. I have mentioned this several times in this thread so why you think I am seeing things as a black and white all out offensive against anyone who has a religious conviction and that I'm going 'out of my way' to poke fun at them, I fail to see.

 

[Krumplenump]

So let me get this straight, first you complain that the definition of Christian is ambiguous, because each individual or group has their own particular definition depending on their own subjective bias.

But when someone offers you arguably the most neutral (and therefore the most accurate/unambiguous) definition of Christian available, you complain that it's irrelevant because it doesn't reflect the multiple subjective definitions of Christian.

Make up your mind, you either want an accurate, unambiguous definition (which by necessity is one that cuts out as much of the subjective bias surrounding the term as possible) or you don't.

Or perhaps it's more that you just want that "accurate, unambiguous" definition of Christian to be the one that conforms to your own particular subjective bias.

I don't want a discription that can't be an umbrella term. The warp of the definition of 'Christian' in the post industrial era renders any attempt to apply an umbrella definition to it futile, since the myriad of self-defined terms that have come to represent vast communities constantly refute each other's interpretations of the term. Therefore a simple definition cannot really exist as a means to represent the followers en mass these days. Still, the term 'Christian' is of course maintained for the sake of verbal ease.

People like the theologian Douglas Wilson are easy to follow. He believes in the bible, believes in the virgin birth, believes in the immaculate conception etc etc - he doesn't pick and choose, discard the 'silly' stuff and thus create yet more 'branches' of unique Christians. If every person who called themselves a Christian was like him or held beliefs similar, then you could give me the most precise definition and I'd be most grateful for it. But people are not, so quit trying. I never asked for one anyway, I simply lamented the fact that so many people re-define the term to suit their own convictions which makes asking questions that would otherwise trip them up so difficult - since they skirt round the frankly stupid elements of Christianity but profess that the parts they believe in maintain the religion's credibility.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Well, I am not in a place like there, and even though I may be debating with people who are, I am not letting my judgements on what I feel is correct 'get in the way' - in the way of what I might add? Civil discussion?

You are basically appealing to me that I should deal with religious people as though our two opposing arguments hold 50-50 ground for the sake of 'not offending' the other person. I'm sorry but I am not going to alter my entire method just so I don't offend someone who wishes to debate and defend religion and who holds beliefs that are practically beyond all reasonable doubt totally unlikely.

Besides, I'd like to add that I only am what could be construed as 'offensive' to those like Barnabas, whos views display the pure bigotry and cocky certainty that religion loves to flaunt. I do not go seeking out those individuals who are privately religious and who don't throw their ideals all over the place in the hope to mock them. I have mentioned this several times in this thread so why you think I am seeing things as a black and white all out offensive against anyone who has a religious conviction and that I'm going 'out of my way' to poke fun at them, I fail to see.

For the record, I am quite against christanity, and most organized religion. The bold though, says to me that you are far worse in this case, and are blind to seeing anything besides your own opinion. You're never going to learn and you are a reason these arguments get out of control.

You FAIL TO SEE how you aren't going out of your way to poke fun? I might have to edit saying this, but damn you are one dense peice of work for not seeing that.

I am done with this discussion, particulary with people who just want to argue until people accept their opinion by brute force. I'm not sure why I got involved with this in the first place.

 

[The Jester]

For the record, I am quite against christanity, and most organized religion. The bold though, says to me that you are far worse in this case, and are blind to seeing anything besides your own opinion. You're never going to learn and you are a reason these arguments get out of control.

You FAIL TO SEE how you aren't going out of your way to poke fun? I might have to edit saying this, but damn you are one dense peice of work for not seeing that.

I am done with this discussion, particulary with people who just want to argue until people accept their opinion by brute force. I'm not sure why I got involved with this in the first place.

Well, krump is right. You can expect a reaction when someone is basically trying to convert us.
This is just one example: http://forum.infjs.com/showthread.php?t=8043
I am totally cool with people who don't do this kind of stuff. Like christmas, I know she's religious. And she's one of my best friends on the forum.
Why? She doesn't shove it down my throat.

Look indigo, it is a forum after all. I have seen many good arguments in these threads, and I learned something from it.
I know, you want to defend the 'underdog'. But you focus a bit too much on krumplenump from what I have seen.
I understand that you're spiritual too and want to defend the people who think likeminded, but telling him that he can only see his opinion implies that others can.
And we're all biased.

 

[Krumplenump]

You FAIL TO SEE how you aren't going out of your way to poke fun? I might have to edit saying this, but damn you are one dense peice of work for not seeing that.

I might call you dense for capitalising the wrong part of my sentence.

I don't fail to see that I poke fun, but I fail to see where I go out of my way to.

Note the change in emphasis. That is the part I fail to see why you think I do, since I quite certainly know I am not going 'out of my way'. It's second nature to me and most other humans to poke fun - in private or public - at people who take silly notions seriously and are openly verbal about it.

But you're a fair guy, and I have no wish to embroil ourselves in further debate.

You have a good point, Jester, how we are all biased to certain extents.

 

[Barnabas]

The Bible was a book that was complied by men who got together to debate and vote on what books should go in and which should not about 300 years after Jesus allegedly died. How much thought does the average Christian actually give as to whether some books/letters deserve to be in the Bible or not? .

Even the four Gospels were written 70-90 years after Jesus allegedly died. And do you honestly think that Paul expected his letters to end up in some "holy" scripture? By what authority do his letters even deserve to be in the Bible? Because he said he had a vision?

I'd just like to mention to tings about this post.

First the earliest Gospel recorded was Matthew, it was written around 60 AD in Hebrew. Jesus dies around 35 AD which means the first Gospel recorded was recorded 25 years after Christs death not 60 or 90.

secondly pauls letters were regarded as scripure even before the canization of the NT whic is evident based on peter's remark in 2 Peter 3:14-16

As for the authority, He had apostlicauthority, meaning that he had he had vision and preformed miracles just like the rest of the apostles under the authority of Christ.

 

[Satya]

I'd just like to mention to tings about this post.

First the earliest Gospel recorded was Matthew, it was written around 60 AD in Hebrew. Jesus dies around 35 AD which means the first Gospel recorded was recorded 25 years after Christs death not 60 or 90.

Which most biblical scholars will agree was first written in Greek by a non eyewitness. Not exactly a compelling case.

secondly pauls letters were regarded as scripure even before the canization of the NT whic is evident based on peter's remark in 2 Peter 3:14-16

Are you seriously arguing that a book that most biblical scholars regard as psuedonymous is the proof that Paul's letters were "scripture" before the "holy" scripture even existed? Nobody knows who authored the book, and the fact that Peter, who was allegedly Paul's greatest rival at the time they were alive, is supposedly endorsing him, makes the likelihood that it isn't Peter. If anything, this comment shines an even brighter light on how little time you have taken to investigate your beliefs.

As for the authority, He had apostlicauthority, meaning that he had he had vision and preformed miracles just like the rest of the apostles under the authority of Christ.

Miracles? Could you be specific about what miracles he performed? I know a magician who can perform signs, wonders, and miracles which fool even the most educated people. I've gone to a church where the pastor prayed for someone to get better, they did, and everyone cheered it as a miracle. It couldn't have been the surgery or medications, it was the work of God! How do I know that Paul's miracles are not the same kind of miracles that pastor performed?

Not only are you quick to assume that a book with a nameless author is proof of Paul's credibility, but you have no skepticism at all of the ancient accounts of his "miracles" when magicians and pastors living today can perform "miracles" which enforce the beliefs of entire crowds of modern people.

Let me say something in this regard. There are two types of people in this world. Those who live to prove their own beliefs and those who live to disprove their own beliefs. You are the former and I am the latter. I believe what I believe because there is not sufficient evidence to disprove it. But I try everyday to do so. You believe what you believe because you specifically seek out information to support your beliefs and ignore evidence which casts a doubt on it. Tell me, am I wrong? Is that not really the reason you hate to debate? Because it makes you realize how much you must ignore or how you must selectively seek out evidence to support what you believe to continue to believe what you believe? As a Christian, have you ever seriously tried to disprove Christianity? If you really believed in it, then what would be the harm in trying?

 

[Barnabas]

And who are these biblical scholars, your argument basicly amounts to because they say so or they say say otherwise.

but realy I don't want to debate this any farther.