<p>Okay. If you really want to understand this, I think I can explain it. But you need to be willing to understand the system in which these statements fit. In other words, don’t fight the explanation until you completely understand it. Then, and only then, try to attack it.</p>
<p>
There is no contradiction at all if we accept the assumptions under which the evangelicals are operating, and we can easily see this if we understand the structure in which these beliefs are organized.</p>
<p>I don’t want to go through it if you just want to attack something, because it would take a lot out of me to look up all this stuff. I mean, I have seen it for myself and, in a way, I am kind of impressed that these folks have developed such a system here. But I don’t remember everything, and I fear too many people just like to hold so tightly to their illusions about how dumb these folks are, I just don’t feel like having to go through a lot just to have them quickly overlook it and keep thrashing around in their illusions.</p>
<p>Actually I wasnt addressing your comments. So sorry. I was in fact addressing a compendium of statements from at least two posters here, one who expressed a general contempt of evangelicals, the other who claimed to know what original Christianity was like and who seemed to condemn evangelical Christianity because it was unlike the original. The fact is, our knowledge of original Christianity is pretty doggone sketchy, unless we depend upon authoritative writings from the earliest Christians, writings like, ummm, THE BIBLE. And the evangelicals are trying to do just that. When we look at how they view these texts, we see there is a rational basis for their perspective. The issue, then, is their assumptions. No one has addressed them. So, I really cant see how we might just roundly condemn these folks as some here appear to be doing. I wont do it because I actually see how it is they see what they see. And if the Bible is the word of God, then I just cant blame them for making the declarations on sin that they make. It really doesnt matter that this or that pastor fails to follow the truth. The truth itself never fails and needs always to be declared. We may not wish to hear it, but not even that is an issue. If these folks assumptions are in fact true, then they simply have no choice but to believe as they do because God commands it.</p>
<p>Again, the guy who just up and told me I was going to hell is just one guy, and I think he did it only because of his personal bitterness. He wasn’t representative of all the many evangelicals I have seen up close. I mean, I have argued with plenty of evangelicals, I mean PLENTY of them, and I havent had one of them tell me I am going to hell. In fact, when I have asked them flat out whether I was, most have simply said they do not know, that only God knows who will see heaven. They have instead focused on doctrinal positions that would not allow one to get to heaven, leaving it up to me to evaluate the question myself. That is not the same thing as telling me I am going to hell, and yet many people are claiming it is the same thing.</p>
<p>Oh cmon friend. The Catholic Church has reasons for requiring its leaders to be celibate. And when I think about it, I see it has a point. A married leader has to divide his attentions, first to his family, then elsewhere. That church doesnt force anyone to become a priest. Its not like there is some Catholic with a whip, beating all these lusting guys into the ministry and then forcing them to be celibate. (Catholic, whip, the imagery - hahaha)</p>
<p>We also need to be mindful of what we are saying here about what the Catholic sex scandal proves. We are claiming that pedophile priests are proving how difficult celibacy is. We need a better line of reasoning here. It seems to me that the Catholic Churchs requirement of priestly celibacy doesnt necessarily cause guys to rape kids. I dont think we can just lay that rap on the Vatican without some serious proof.</p>
<p>Which belief do you hold that you believe is not true?</p>
<p>…I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you do not believe anything that you have decided is false or not factually true. That is, if you believe something, you believe it to be true. That’s how it works. </p>
<p>It is likely that those that profess Christianity–of any kind–are just like you. What they believe, they believe to be true. What’s worse, you don’t get to chose to believe or not to believe; you either believe or you don’t.</p>
<p>You may have moments of doubt, and likely you do, but you will not believe what you know to be false without a serious medical/mental condition.</p>
<p>If you believe it is wrong to cheat, that does not necessarily mean that you will not cheat, it merely means that you will fell guilty having cheated. If you do not believe it is wrong to have a homosexual experience, you will not feel guilty having had a homosexual experience.</p>
<p>The Pastor in question believed homosexual experiences were wrong, he had one anyway, he feels guilt. People who are openly and proudly gay do not feel that it is wrong (I presume) they therefore do not feel guilt but feel rather the warm glow of love in the experience.</p>
<p>First, you believe something to be true–a rational feeling based on experience and individual consciousness–then you act as if it is true (either by omission or commission). </p>
<p>But to be clear, as with the current election, I support the will of the people. In that sense I support gay unions/marriages as the will of the people speaks positively on the issue.</p>
<p>I am also predisposed to be emotionally sympathetic to the issue.</p>
<p>See, this kind of post from our very own FS makes me rather all-mushy.</p>
<p>See, FS? I just knew you were not a caracature for the Republican party, but a more complex individual than that. I appreciate your posts today.</p>
<p>Gosh, I thought Dross’s posts were rather complex, AM, and all he got was a chiding from you for speaking to the choir. Today because FS makes clear she believes in our democractic process (was there any doubt?) and is on your side of the gay marriage issue, she’s complex. I guess “complex individual” is in the eye of the beholder. ;)</p>
<p>i myself am suprised that the word LIBERAL hasn’t popped up anywhere in FS sirens posts…</p>
<p>as for the Paster, sure he felt guilt, but he took his personal “beliefs” and wanted to make that public policy, and that is very different then a personal struggle…when you are in the public arena, and he was, and it was very much by choice, his personal life choices are fodder for debate, especially when he is using others lives for political gain</p>
<p>whether he ran for office or not is irrelevant, when you brag that you have the er of the Whitehouse weekly, well, you are political</p>
I am not sure FS is on anyone’s side here. She will have to correct me, but she seems actually quite like me on this issue-- respectful of the positions of those who counter gay marriage, but emotionally sympathetic to those who want it. I also detect an awareness that emotional sympathy is not enough to form public law. So, instead of just beating folks over the head as “immoral hedonists” or “unthinking dogmatists”, she points out how dogmatic we can be when we condemn dogma.</p>
<p>Being practiced in the exegetical art of reading CGM’s multiplex thoughts (in her words, such as they are, “geesh,” “suuree” etc), I have no option left but to conclude that Liberals–in Ms “M’s” world–do not need to believe in their public policies before imposing them on the rest of us.</p>
<p>:That’s one approach.</p>
<p>[note to CGM, use of word: “Liberal” …just for you Sweetie]</p>
This will seem like an insult to a lot of people. But I am telling yall, it seems to me this is the implication of A LOT of posts here on these threads.</p>
<p>I understand; you’re right. I just kind of perceived that AM’s heart LEAPT when FS said she is emotionally amenable to gay marriage, which suddenly categorized her as “complex” in AM’s mind, and not just a caricature of a Republican (which I personally feel has been clear from the start :)) while previously she dismissed your very thoughtful posts on the subject.</p>
Yeah, well, you know, its hard to pay attention and be all kind to folks who don’t accept something that is emotionally close to you. I understand this, and I am sure you do too, given our disagreements on Affirmative Action. So I have no hard feelings against anyone here. And I suggest none of us take bad feelings away from this discussion. We can use this place to explore ourselves, instead of just DEFENDING against everything. That is basically what I am trying to do. It is important to me because I have a lot of kids who are asking questions, and I want to have good answers, instead of just saying stuff like “Those religious folks are just dogmatic idiots who are wrong, wrong, wrong”, or “Gays? They’re disgusting – Nuff said.”.</p>
<p>“[note to CGM, use of word: “Liberal” …just for you Sweetie]”</p>
<p>FountainSiren: You are morphing in to a little b***hy here. Many parents are tolerating your rant and language as they would tolerate a little playfullness of a puppy. But keep your language skills sharp and they will dump you like a last week’s fish.</p>
<p>Fwiw, my dear, I have been called every name in the book on this forum many far worse than liberal although some may disagree with the last point.</p>
<p>I might add that your rhetoric in this thread, and your slurs against Christians et al, to many might seem somewhat sharp when compared to my referring to CGM as a liberal.</p>
<p>To the degree that I can comprehend what you are saying, this little nugget from post #220 (a few pages back), seems rather b***hy (to use your mix of letters and symbols):
What do you think, sweetheart? A little sharp and sassy?</p>
<p>“unless we depend upon authoritative writings from the earliest Christians, writings like, ummm, THE BIBLE…”</p>
<p>To answer FS’ question: This is the belief that Christians hold as factual, but is actually only their opinion. They believe the bible is the word of God, and I respect their belief, but the conflict occurs when that belief is imposed on others; when they back up their arguments with quotes from a book that not everyone believes is authoritative.</p>
<p>To give an example: In this country, murder is against the law. No one will argue about that, because it is a fact that we have this law. But Christians will often argue that something is wrong because they believe it is against God’s law, and use the bible to back it up, but this approach is flawed because not everyone is in agreement with the bible being authoritative and stating God’s law, or that there even is a God’s law, or that there even is a God, for that matter.</p>
<p>It is indisputable that the country’s laws are authoritative, but highly debatable as to whether the bible is authoritative.</p>