Just one liberal attack on christianity

[dsanthony]

Some libs seem to have gotten amnesia. When I mentioned how lefties have attacked religion in the US, they have never heard of such a thing before! So here's a link:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50344

A cross has been at the present location, in one form of another, since 1913. Sanders and many citizens consider the cross and the war memorial an important part of San Diego's history. The battle began in 1989 when Phillip Paulsen, an atheist, filed suit, and a court ordered the city to remove the cross.

[T.J. Wolfe]

An attack on christianity would be trying to get rid of the idea, not a stupid cross.

[dsanthony]

Wrong, of course.

[AlonzoMourning23]

OMG! How dare they say that public property should not be used to support a certain religion.

On a side note, seems the plaintiff may be dying of liver cancer:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060901-9999-7m1paulson.html

[T.J. Wolfe]

Wrong, of course.


Prove it.

[Technocrat]

This is just a rehash of the original nonsense, and in fact, it's a perfect example of the biased sample fallacy I linked to in the previous discussion. He's putting a spotlight on the most vocal members doing X activity and extrapolates that means "all" are like that---or even the majority.

101 repetitions doesn't equal 1 truth.


Again, the example of Christian persecution he refers to isn't really that at all; it's that old Persecution Complex at work that some Christians have. No matter how dominant they are, no matter how much power they have, any criticism or dissent is deemed "anti-christian." It's hyperbole and modern sophistry.

Glory, Glory Halleuhja! Praise the Lord!

[sbannon]

When did the right become so touchy-feely sensitive? Have they been watching too many long distance phone service commercials or something... you know, where the little kids call Grandma on some holiday and it makes everything good in the world again.

Tell me dsanthony, if the Home Owners Association in a housing plan decides to ban the color mauve for external house paint is that an "attack on purple lovers" or the color purple itself?

Of course not, it's people saying they don't feel that specific color is appropriate here. Much like those who don't want religious symbols displayed on public buildings are saying. They aren't attacking the religion, they're only saying that its symbols don't belong in some specific places.

[Labrocca]

I just think it's silly to remove something that already exists. 76% of the residents voted to keep it. I also wonder if dsanthony would be outraged at the removal of a Islamic symbols on public property...paid for with his tax dollars.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But it is an attack on us Christians, what else could it reasonably be called?
2. From many angles from the heatherns we are being put down.
3. Unless we stand up for ourselves you heatherns will remove all religious things from America.
4. You have made this fight necessary.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[dsanthony]

If libs would be honest about their goals and agenda, I'd almost respect them. Every session of Congress is opened with a prayer. The Presidential oath of office is taken on a bible. In God We Trust appears on the bible.

There is NO "separation of church and state" in the constitution. That is a liberal lie. There is a mandate not to "establish" a religion. That was of course a response to the "Church of England" which the colonists and all English citizens paid taxes to support. There is ZERO justification to remove all religous imagery and symbolism from the public sphere.

Further, along with this battle in San Diego, there are attempts to remove symbols of the cross from the city seals of Los Angeles and Las Cruces. Stupid and wrong. Los Angeles began as a catholic mission. Las Cruces literally means "the crosses", yet they are being forced to remove the crosses from their city seal. To ignore the historical and cultural influence of Christianity is absurd and Stalinist.

If they were given the power, libs would launch "reforms" worthy of Stalinist Russia or France during the Terror. All the religous symbols I mentioned will be removed (In god we trust, oath of office on the bible, opening congressional prayer). All cities with christian names will be forced to change--St. Louis, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Corpus Christi, St. Augustine, etc.

Libs are anti-Christian. Their fervor is based on bigotry, not reason. 85% of the citizens of the US are christian. Denying them to voice their beliefs in the public square is the summit of intolerance.

"I also wonder if dsanthony would be outraged at the removal of a Islamic symbols on public property...paid for with his tax dollars"

Yes, lab follows his usual tactic. Attacking a poster he disagrees with as a bigot. Surprise. Instead of asking a question in the third person, address it to me directly and I will respond.

[sbannon]

Libs are anti-Christian. Their fervor is based on bigotry, not reason. 85% of the citizens of the US are christian. Denying them to voice their beliefs in the public square is the summit of intolerance.
dsanthony, again you're making wild claims that have no basis in reality. Remember, as several people have now pointed out, just because you say it that doesn't make it so.

If, as you say 85% of U.S. citizens are Christian, and all liberals are anti-Christian, then that would mean only 15% of U.S. citizens are liberal. The math just doesn't add up.

Say it again, over and over, but it still won't be true. There's no great anti-Christian agenda among liberals.

[dsanthony]

Again, please read your posts. You have an anti-Christian bias. You can try to Newspeak your way around acknowledging it if you like. Doesn't fool me or change the facts.

[sbannon]

dsanthony, okay, now you're just out of control. Please, point out any single anti-Christian statement I've made.

[Labrocca]

Yes, lab follows his usual tactic.Â*Â*Attacking a poster he disagrees with as a bigot.Â*Â*Surprise.Â*Â*Instead of asking a question in the third person, address it to me directly and I will respond.

This is now an open discussion thread not a private message. I don't need to directly address you in order to participate in the discussion. I didn't call you a bigot nor do I disagree with you. You are so damn defensive it's sickening. Do you simply want everyone to post "yes dsanthony is right" and not voice any opinion other than yours? WTF is really your problem? Get over yourself.

[dsanthony]

Your tactic "I wonder what dsanthony would think.." is a not-so-subtle way of saying "dsanthony is a bigot, and I challenge him to prove me wrong..."
I wonder what Lab thinks of anti-semitism in the black community?

If you wonder what I think about something, be a man and ask me.

[Labrocca]

lol...you're a funny guy.

Ok...Would you have objections if Islamic symbols were on public property and people were asking them to be removed?

Am I a man now?

[BoogyMan]

It would seem that liberals object to any system of belief that does not place mans ultimate fate into his own hands. It is little more than abject humanism. I don't know that liberals are anti-Christian, I think that it is bigger than that, anti-religion would be more apropos.

[Labrocca]

That's why I wanted to know if dsanthony would object to Islamic symbols being removed. Does he truly think liberals are attacking Christianity or all religions? IMHO you are right boogy...it's all religions that have a God.

[dsanthony]

That's better, lab. But are you asking if I mind Islamic symbols being there, or if I mind their being removed? Two different questions.

If Islamic citizens want to put a memorial or crescent symbol on public property, I have no problem with that. Of course, I'm not a christian or a muslim.
Reminds me of a story though. A few years ago, the city of Boston made a big show of welcoming a Mormon temple in their city. But, when the construction was almost complete, the city council refused to let them erect the statue of the Angel Moroni (sp?) which stands over all their temples. The august city council of the heavily catholic boston said that the statue was too tall. Honestly don't know how that played out.

Libs are not as vocally anti-religious as they are anti-christian. As I've shown here on this forum, they give a pass to the repression and violence perpetrated by muslims (against the US and against other muslims) while jumping on the smallest faux pas by a christian. What they won't admit is that they are trying to weaken the political base of the Repub party, which is conservative christian ...

[sbannon]

Boogy, that's a good point and very worthy of some discussion and debate. I can't speak for all liberals (they've told me not to), but for myself I can say that I do have a problem with Organized Religions in general. It has nothing to do with them 'having a God' as Labrocca suggests, because I believe in and speak with God and Jesus almost daily, there are the days here and there where I'm so tired I'll doze off before holding my nightly chats, but otherwise me, God and Jesus have a good relationship.

My problem with Organized Religions have to do with how easily man's human faults can and do corrupt them. In recent times Islam has been victim of this, where some radicals have subverted its teachings to con devoted followers into becoming pawns for their personal agendas.

If you look at the history of religions you'll find that Jeremiah was a Bullfrog--sorry, I couldn't resist that--you'll find that every major religion at one time or another has been abused and misused by its leaders for personal and political agendas.

We humans are just that, human; and all subject to having human faults. Organized Religion tends to place a select few humans into near God-like status in the hearts and minds of devoted followers which opens the door to such abuses by those human leaders as has been seen throughout history.

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, that's a good point and very worthy of some discussion and debate. I can't speak for all liberals (they've told me not to), but for myself I can say that I do have a problem with Organized Religions in general. It has nothing to do with them 'having a God' as Labrocca suggests, because I believe in and speak with God and Jesus almost daily, there are the days here and there where I'm so tired I'll doze off before holding my nightly chats, but otherwise me, God and Jesus have a good relationship.

My problem with Organized Religions have to do with how easily man's human faults can and do corrupt them. In recent times Islam has been victim of this, where some radicals have subverted its teachings to con devoted followers into becoming pawns for their personal agendas.

If you look at the history of religions you'll find that Jeremiah was a Bullfrog--sorry, I couldn't resist that--you'll find that every major religion at one time or another has been abused and misused by its leaders for personal and political agendas.

We humans are just that, human; and all subject to having human faults. Organized Religion tends to place a select few humans into near God-like status in the hearts and minds of devoted followers which opens the door to such abuses by those human leaders as has been seen throughout history.


Sbannon, that is why God gave us his word, in order to make sure that what is being done in his name is not mans will but His. You wont hear that from most mainstream "religions" today, but that is the case.

There will always be human failure in religion, its whether or not God's plan for dealing with it is being followed as to whether or not the religion is by His pattern and truly in His service.

[Labrocca]

I gotta recant what I said and quite possibly dsanthony is right about it being more against Christians. I guess I will pay more attention to the whole matter. I am sure more posts will surface here about this.

[T.J. Wolfe]

This kind of reminds me of the whole alonzo situation. Alonzo stated (at least I think he did) that the whole blacks on the back of the bus were because the kids were black, and dsanthony came in saying just because they had to sit in the back of the bus and they were black doesn't mean the bus driver was being racist.

Kind of the situation now, only dsanthony thinks everyones prejudice against the christians. I smell a sitcom!

[dsanthony]

Except that I was challenged to find a case where "liberals" were either anti-Christian or waging a war on Christianity. Sban, unknowingly, provided the proof when he says he is against "organized religion".... I guess that includes christianity.

the non-establishment clause does NOT justify removing all symbols or acknowledgement of christianity. It means just what it says, the US will not establish Christianity, or any sect of christianity, as our official religion. But, 85% of the US population is christian. Though I personally think they're delusional, the constitution does not prohibit them from expressing their religious views in the public arena. They may not exclude others, of course.

[T.J. Wolfe]

Yes, all liberals are against christianity because sbannon said he was against organized religion.

And I suppose 85% of the US population are fools.

[dsanthony]

Do you have an argument to post, or do you simply pick a few phrases out of others' quotes and pose them as questions?

[sbannon]

dsanthony, again you failed to comprehend the words you were reading. I said very clearly that I have a problem with Organized Religions because of the human structure, not the spiritual beliefs they represent or contain. I'm not anti-Christian or anti any religious beliefs at all, I'm anti-structured hierarchies that have formed from them and allow humans to sit in God-like positions over the devoted followers. There is a distinct difference.

Think of it this way (I'll try to use smaller words here), someone can love Corn but hate Creamed Corn. It's not the Corn they don't like, it's the addition of the sauce. The same idea applies to my feelings on Organized Religion. It's not the/any spiritual beliefs I oppose at all, it's the man made structures which have been added.

[dsanthony]

yawn... Christianity is an organized religion. You are against organized religions. It's pretty simple.

[T.J. Wolfe]

Do you have an argument to post, or do you simply pick a few phrases out of others' quotes and pose them as questions?


Prove your statement.

[sbannon]

yawn... Christianity is an organized religion. You are against organized religions. It's pretty simple.
No, you are confusing Spiritual Beliefs with Organized Religion because you either don't understand there's a difference or because it suits your argument to do so.

Either way, Christianity is the system of beliefs and practices based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Christianity doesn't depend upon any structured organization to exist, it depends on individuals having belief and practicing the teachings.

Organized Religion is a man made after-thought that's historically proven to be highly susceptible to man's abuse.

[BoogyMan]

yawn...Â*Â*Christianity is an organized religion.Â*Â*You are against organized religions.Â*Â*It's pretty simple.
No, you are confusing Spiritual Beliefs with Organized Religion because you either don't understand there's a difference or because it suits your argument to do so.

Either way, Christianity is the system of beliefs and practices based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Christianity doesn't depend upon any structured organization to exist, it depends on individuals having belief and practicing the teachings.

Organized Religion is a man made after-thought that's historically proven to be highly susceptible to man's abuse.


Hey Sbannon, you are wrong there. There are examples and commands in the text of the Bible that call on the faithful to assemble and work together. As a matter of fact there is a very clearly defined structure listed in the text that call for elders/bishops, deacons, preachers, and teachers.

God gave a clear and specific organization and purpose to the church, which is the assemblage of the faithful not the building.

You are correct that practicing the teachings is required and part of that practice is following His command.

[sbannon]

Boogy, I'll admit that my Biblical knowledge isn't profound. I've read it cover to cover, but many years ago. Tell me, was it God's words that so clearly and specifically set the design of Organized Religion or man's? And please point me to the passsages if you'd be so kind.

Still, even if what you point out is absolutely correct it doesn't change what I said really. Christianity is still the belief and practice of those beliefs by the individual. It doesn't rely on an Organized Church to have purpose or meaning.

However, the Organized Church does rely on Christianity (or another system of beliefs) to have purpose or meaning.

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, I'll admit that my Biblical knowledge isn't profound. I've read it cover to cover, but many years ago. Tell me, was it God's words that so clearly and specifically set the design of Organized Religion or man's? And please point me to the passsages if you'd be so kind.

I will glady point out those texts for you.Â*Â*After the day of Pentecost where the holy spirit brought to their remembrance all that Christ taught the apostles (Acts 2) we find the gospel being preached.Â*Â*As the gospel spread, we find the faithful assembling together in congregations in various localities. Each congregation was under its ownelders (Acts 14:23) and under no one else on earth. These elders could not make law or be master. They were given the responsibility of tending and caring for the congregation as shepherds would a flock (Acts 20:17,28, 1 Pet. 5:1-3). The only headquarters the New Testament disciples knew was heaven, where their head, Jesus Christ, was and is (Eph. 1:22-23). Their worship was something to participate in, not something to watch. On the first day of every week, for instance, they would eat the Lord's supper and hear preaching (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 11:23-19). They would share their mutual responsibilities by giving of their prosperity, and we find contributions being collected only on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2). In all this they were all, by necessity, involved – for each was a priest (1 Pet. 2:5,9, Rev. 1:5,6). No one could perform his service of worship for him.

The organization as defined above is the only organization in the New Testament and any other outside of it is error.


Still, even if what you point out is absolutely correct it doesn't change what I said really. Christianity is still the belief and practice of those beliefs by the individual. It doesn't rely on an Organized Church to have purpose or meaning.

However, the Organized Church does rely on Christianity (or another system of beliefs) to have purpose or meaning.


I think you will find yourself mistaken when some study has been done.

[sbannon]

Gee, Boogy, if you say that any other interpretation of the splices of selections you picked and pulled from in an unordered manner and provided is in error than it must be so.

Here I was all excited that I was about to be shown a huge doctrine of God's, in His own words, from the Bible which I had somehow missed before and instead I get the equivalent of a Hollywood ransom note with letters and words cut from magazines and pasted together to form your idea.

What of the many who believe that the true church of God is an invisible, spiritual organism, of those people that have and are led by the Spirit of God? There's at-least as much support for this in the Bible as there is for your idea.

When Jesus spoke of building His church He wasn't talking about an organized entity or buildings, He was speaking of growing His fellowship of believers, those who would continue to spread His message. Again, there's plenty to support this in the Bible as well.

We're going way off topic at this point, but it clearly demonstrates how man's input on religion can become dangerous so easily. Anyone with a little time on their hands can go through any scripture and pick words from here and there to create a new meaning or text all together.

[dsanthony]

religion is a social institution. Like any other institution, it can become dangerous. Next point?

[AlonzoMourning23]

I gotta recant what I said and quite possibly dsanthony is right about it being more against Christians.Â*Â*I guess I will pay more attention to the whole matter.Â*Â*I am sure more posts will surface here about this.


Personally, I can say that I have no ill feeling towards organized religion or christians. It's just that everything has its place. Religion belongs outside the domain of government. The only reason that it sometimes appears that christians are the target is because they're everywhere, if you want religion removed from government then 99.9% of the time the religion that's in government will be Christianity. It's simply an issue of demographics.

Virtually every religion (only the fact that I don't know all religions keeps me from saying every religion) is beneficial to certain people, the key point is getting the people into the right religion for them. Even the most vilified of all religions, Satanism (not the idiots running around "ooh, the devil's cool", but people who are familiar with, and practice, actual religious satanism), is beneficial to its followers.

Religion, just like anything else, can be abused by those in power or by its followers, but its not the fault of the religion.

[Technocrat]

religion is a social institution. Like any other institution, it can become dangerous. Next point?


True, but one problem about many types of religions, although not all, is that they actively cultivate irrationality as a virtue. In Islam and Christanity, for example, the primary virtues don't resemble those of the classical world, such as "health of the mind," "rationality," and "independence."

Christianity, since the time of Jesus has encouraged counterproductive, weak virtues, such as humility, meekness, and obedience to the Lord as tender of the flock.

Since the time of St. Augstine, as well as the philosophical dabblings of his successor St. Aquinace, the idea has not been to use "reason," but rather faith, and faith is the primary virtue. But fath is inherently irrational.

So, unlike other institutions, religion frequently cultivates a far more dangerous, mentally infantalized mind. Not to mention that religions, such as the above, are normative.

[dsanthony]

well, if you study history you'll see that christianity has not really encouraged "counterproductive, weak virtues, such as humility, meekness, and obedience to the Lord as tender of the flock," though it's teachings do give comfort often to the weak and powerless.

Actually, it was Dutch and English christains (and later American) which launched the industrial revolutoin and capitalism, based on virtures like hard work and thrift.

I disagree that religion cultivates irrationality. I'd say that the majority of people are by nature irrational and "infantized." As Washington and others knew, a "public religion" (washington's phrase) was necessary to give hope to the hopeless and encourage virtue in the weak.

Of course for self-aware people, religion is not necessary. But society is not filled with self-aware people. It's filled with people driven by impulses they can barely control.

One of the problems with libs is that they cannot recognize that. The violence and dysfunction of our inner cities is the result of libs destroying the "public religion" which kept socities, families and individual psyches together.

[BoogyMan]

Gee, Boogy, if you say that any other interpretation of the splices of selections you picked and pulled from in an unordered manner and provided is in error than it must be so.

Here I was all excited that I was about to be shown a huge doctrine of God's, in His own words, from the Bible which I had somehow missed before and instead I get the equivalent of a Hollywood ransom note with letters and words cut from magazines and pasted together to form your idea.

What of the many who believe that the true church of God is an invisible, spiritual organism, of those people that have and are led by the Spirit of God? There's at-least as much support for this in the Bible as there is for your idea.

When Jesus spoke of building His church He wasn't talking about an organized entity or buildings, He was speaking of growing His fellowship of believers, those who would continue to spread His message. Again, there's plenty to support this in the Bible as well.

We're going way off topic at this point, but it clearly demonstrates how man's input on religion can become dangerous so easily. Anyone with a little time on their hands can go through any scripture and pick words from here and there to create a new meaning or text all together.


Gee Sbannon, you say so with no scripture to back it up and a disjointed and unsupported view so it must be so.

I gave you simple clear teachings. What you do with them is up to you.

Those scriptures were clear, your beef is with them.

[Technocrat]

well, if you study history you'll see that christianity has not really encouraged "counterproductive, weak virtues, such as humility, meekness, and obedience to the Lord as tender of the flock," though it's teachings do give comfort often to the weak and powerless.

Well, I am confused, because are you saying that Christianity doesn't advocate those virtues--meekness, humility, obedience, and faith? I did forget generosity and charity. However,

In the day of Jesus, one of the most important virtues was pacifism and the display of indifference. He wanted people to be humble and to ignore the world around them--to turn the other cheek and give all away they could. Admittedly, these suggestions were likely because he didn't plan on having a long-term virtue programme. They weren't going to last that long according to the early Christians.

St. Augustine and some of the Christian scholars of the Middle Ages had to do some reconstruction work on the original philosophy. A lot changed during the era of Aquinace, when they finally rediscovered the works of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.



Actually, it was Dutch and English christains (and later American) which launched the industrial revolutoin and capitalism, based on virtures like hard work and thrift.

That's a form of Christianity, true. I forgot about the Puritans. They were fairly unique, since they came about as a result of a modification of original Christianity after the reformation. The RCC was the primary promoter of the Virtues of Jesus.


I disagree that religion cultivates irrationality. I'd say that the majority of people are by nature irrational and "infantized." As Washington and others knew, a "public religion" (washington's phrase) was necessary to give hope to the hopeless and encourage virtue in the weak.[/quote


I agree that people, by nature, are irrational too, but I don't see how Christianity helped the problem in some respects. As I see it, Christianity inherited a lot of bad things from Judaism.

1. It inherited the jewish moral legalism.

I think that's a problem because it discourages critical thinking or independent thought. Jewish morality is all about following a set of rules handed down from on high. It's not like the more independent virtues extolled by the ancient greeks during the 5th and 4th centuries. The reason to act moral is almost entirely extrinsic. You follow the rule or else.

In a way, Christian and Jewish morality make use of modern tenets of Behaviorism well-before it was discovered--they use operant conditioning. They get people to be "good," whereas good is defined by whatever the Bible/God conditions you to believe. If people take the religion seriously in the first place, this means using punishment, negative reinforcement, and positive reinforcement. Heven and eternal happiness can be seen as P.R., while Hell is the 'ultimate' in punishment.

Consistant nagging by local ministers, priests, and pastors seems to me very much like negative reinforcement. So really, I see a philosophy built on the twin constructions of legalism and operant conditioning. Neither of which take much critical thinking and encourage obedience.

2. In addition, I see Christianity over-enthused with the language of the flock. I mean, they actively refer to their leadres as Shepards or Pastors leading a flock. Even their holy imagery deals with Jesus or God acting as a father figure or someone leading them to salvation upon which time some will be judged.

3. During the age of Augustine, I have some problems with Christian philosphy, since he seems overly focused on the ideal of faith. I am not too keen on that because, although I agree with you that people are normally irrational, promoting faith as a virtue seems to say it's ok to act irraitonally. By promoting faith it, by association, promotes irrationality. Faith is the opposite of rational thought because it's belief in that for which there's no evidence or in spite of evidence. I would say any belief that encourages this is doing a detriment to indepent, rational thought. This is why I largely prefer the Enlightenment moral constructs.

4. There's another problem I see; it deals with Augustine and later William of Ockham. Both seemed to boil the religoin down to "there's no reason to be Good, other than God says so. What's good is merely what God says."

Where is the reasoning in that? William of Ockham merely said something is good because God says so. I think that's a bit intellectually lazy.


[quote]
One of the problems with libs is that they cannot recognize that. The violence and dysfunction of our inner cities is the result of libs destroying the "public religion" which kept socities, families and individual psyches together.


Well, loss of religion is one reason I favour active ethical education in school. Preferably Utilitarian ethics.

[sbannon]

Simple clear teachings? Are you kidding? You gave selected sentences from numerous passages, pulled from their original context and then you even rearranged the order in which they actually appear. If that's what you call clear than no wonder there's such a failure to communicate around here.

I'm sorry, it takes a slightly more linear path of logic to be credible with me.

[BoogyMan]

Simple clear teachings? Are you kidding? You gave selected sentences from numerous passages, pulled from their original context and then you even rearranged the order in which they actually appear. If that's what you call clear than no wonder there's such a failure to communicate around here.

I'm sorry, it takes a slightly more linear path of logic to be credible with me.


It was quite clear. Read the context of each of those teachings and take them as a whole, not as separate teaching. God is no respecter of persons and does not give you a different path to Heaven than anyone else. Acts 10:34, John 14:6

It isnt me that you are rejecting here Sbannon.

Tell me exactly how the teaching wasn't clear? Was it because you would have to invest some of your time to go and get the answers, you have lost me. The teaching was directly from God's word which in John 8:23 teaches that "ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

[sbannon]

Boogy, the paragraph, as you presented it, is made up from bits and pieces of passages throughout the Bible mixed together in selective order to form a conclusion. This is why I likened what you offered to a Hollywood ransom note where letters are cut from magazines and newspapers then glued together to form the message.

I'm not actually rejecting anything here, I'm simply saying that you've taken various parts of passages and thrown them together in a stew to find the interpretation you want. That's fine and I'm not going to argue your interpretations, but neither will I personally accept them when presented in that manner.

If you want to show me that God provided a master blueprint for the structured entity of Organized Religion it'll have to be with that specific message clearly stated in one or more passages without pulling a sentence here and a sentence there then rearranging them in the best suited order to create the message.

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, the paragraph, as you presented it, is made up from bits and pieces of passages throughout the Bible mixed together in selective order to form a conclusion. This is why I likened what you offered to a Hollywood ransom note where letters are cut from magazines and newspapers then glued together to form the message.

I'm not actually rejecting anything here, I'm simply saying that you've taken various parts of passages and thrown them together in a stew to find the interpretation you want. That's fine and I'm not going to argue your interpretations, but neither will I personally accept them when presented in that manner.

If you want to show me that God provided a master blueprint for the structured entity of Organized Religion it'll have to be with that specific message clearly stated in one or more passages without pulling a sentence here and a sentence there then rearranging them in the best suited order to create the message.


You are much smarter than the attitude you present about the bible here. I have read your postings and found you to be, for the most part, reasonable and well read. Why will you not take the time to study the writings in context, you will see they are not improperly applied nor taken out of context.

[sbannon]

Boogy, first thank you for your kind words. It's refreshing to see such civility and I would say that the very same easily applies to yourself as well. I rarely agree with your positions fully, but I always respect them, even in this discussion though it may not seem so.

I am willing to re-read the passages you pulled from, and in fact have gone over a couple already this evening and perhaps we should put this discussion on hold until tomorrow after I've been able to get them all in?