Christianity stands against a functional society

Post Reply New Topic

No, success.

Even further, all you are doing is citing the claims that the author is ATTACKING as false in his work. Citing them to the author is intellectually dishonest. It is a misattribution. Take the claim in context, as earlier within that SAME sentence the author talks about the body of literature, not what the author actually necessarily thinks the Nazis believed. Citing it the way you do, suggests that your author agrees with you, when he clearly doesn't.

Y'know why I use the term "a**hole". It isn't that I hate your position. It is that I consider your efforts outright intellectually dishonest. Period. Maybe someone will rebuke me. I doubt it would go too far. I use the term because it is apt.

Meh i prefer the looseness over restricted belief systems. If it was too restricted eventually conflict would rise between Christians(your definition) and Non-Christians the government might remain secular if where lucky but more than likely religious teachings would infiltrate it deeply. Either that or there would be a max exodus to a more Christian country with our country only receiving missionaries. The way it is now, beliefs are more up to the individual and his/her church. This splits up political clout much, while also preventing the unity they would need to influence an excessive amount of control on our government. I prefer this way as opposed to the way you describe your way seems kind of dangerous to me actually. Christianity is just a label you shouldn't bother so much with just a label, but thats only because its split the way it is I'm thankful they don't have as much power as they could.

Well, the real issue is, as I've stated, the average Christian is full of crap. The average Catholic is actually a heretic by the beliefs of his/her own denomination. The average Protestant affirms that the Bible is the Word of God, but then never reads it. I see no reason to value their faith as a consideration, especially since I believe Richard Dawkin's claim that most of these people wouldn't change their lives much if, as networks, they became atheists. (I say as networks simply to nullify effects of discrimination)

This statement is inconsistent with the values stated in the forum guidelines. I would ask sincerely that you disist from these sorts of statements. This is also not the first time I have asked you to do so.



I believe that this would qualify your position as fundamentalist. The fact that this view is inconsistent with both mainstream Christianity is no surprise to me. The fact that you are using this view to measure the views of others is absolutely false. Since you are assuming that people should hold the same interpretation as yours.



So let me get this straight; you consider a bunch of people living in a separate way to you as somehow undermining your capacity to live your own life. I believe that this would also qualify your position as fundamentalist.



So you take Yoder, Falwel and John piper over Luther; I think we have discovered where you went wrong.

I believe the greatest danger we face when reading the scripture is that we often see what we want. You have proven this, you have looked into our sacred book and read it in a way that allows you to be prejudice towards us. This is not surprising; but I find it profoundly disappointing.

You mean "desist".


Ok? And I regard non-fundamentalist strands of Christianity as very much intellectually dishonest. By "fundamentalist" I don't necessarily even mean "conservative vs liberal", I mean with a proper regard for fundamental Christianity. Yoder is not a literalist, but he fits perfectly well into this sort of "fundamentalism".


No. Look, apparently you are now trying to mischaracterize me in another way. I am glad that you enjoy doing this, but keep it the hell away from me.

My point was, and is still from the beginning, that the fundamentals of Christianity are not compatible with a civil society. This has nothing to do with "Christians are destroying society". You have mischaracterized my position grossly more than once. You have misused your own source in egregious manners, TWICE, one time even after I posted the source for all to see. You are not intellectually honest.


I'm not even engaging in this authority w*k, period. The fact that you see me as doing so still shows dishonesty.

I addressed the texts themselves. I invoked other authors because you asked. I did not invoke other authors because I regard their opinions as normative for how I or anybody else should think.

That being said, modern theologians are likely better than Luther. This is NOT including Falwell, as I never included Falwell with any seriousness. This IS including Yoder, and even Piper. (It must be noted, that Yoder is one of the most notable students of Karl Barth, Barth often being considered one of the greatest theologians since Aquinas by Pope Pius XII, so not a minor figure.) The reason for this is that modern theologians have more intellectual history to build off of, including improvements in the ability to engage and address texts. I would hold Yoder over Luther in general, heck, if one even studies Luther, one quickly encounters the question "Which Luther", as Luther actually changed his mind a lot of different times. John Calvin is noted for greater consistency.

Finally, your entire method here has been dishonest from the beginning. For you to go back and say "the danger when reading scripture" stands utterly against all of the misreadings of my position, all of the quibblings you've attempted when trying to avoid the issue of what scripture says(such as in denying literalism, for no gain on your end), even this whole ordeal of trying to cite theologians rather than citing the text. Your method is dishonest, period. I am no longer going to engage you on this issue, period, as you have already shown to a sufficient degree your dishonesty.

Yes



Yes but your topic is labeled 'Christianity stands against a functional society'. The kind of fundamentalist views (which seems to be more your view on Christianity) you are talking about are clearly not held by the majority of the Christian population. Christians clearly do sue one another and do accumulate wealth, they do take part in civil society. The fact that your view of Christian society is counter to civil society does not surprise me in the least; you are a self proclaimed anti-theist.



[Oh no, you can't get away that easily. If that was your argument it would be in the topic heading which clearly states, 'Christianity stands against a functional society'. If you were arguing that fundamentalist Christianity stands against a functional society then I would most likely be arguing the same, with you.

As to the discussion relating to the Cambridge press article

You and I must be reading two different articles. The basic assessment I got was that there were Christian Nazi's but the the overall goal of Nazism was to replace the Christian Faith with a system of worship based on the concept of a race based religion. How you deduced from this that the Nazi's were therefor Christian is a supposition you must have gotten beyond the text.

I find the type of logic you have used in this subject runs counter to the one discussed in this topic. On the one hand you are arguing that the fundamentalist view of Christianity is correct while at the same time making the case that fundamental tenets of Nazi doctrine were Christian because their followers were Christian. There is a great deal of inconstancy in this position.

Furthermore, considering the fact that we all know the Nazi's used cherry-picked facts to attack their enemies. Doing the same to make a case against Christianity would seem to be attempting to replicate the same method. What is true is that Christians fought on both sides, French, British, American, Australian, Canadian, Polish and many of other nationalities fought against the Nazi's. Attempting to tar all of Christianity with the Nazi brush would do a great disservice to those who fought and gave their lives to end the tyranny of Hitlers Germany. What does tar all of us with the Nazi brush is the fact that they were all Human and so were we and despite the fact that some may argue different, we can all commit atrocities. Or are you going to argue to me that Pol Pots execution squads were Christian too?

I've already told you, I am done. You are not an intellectually honest opponent. I am not arguing this any further with you.