New Life
You're talking about mormons and jews there, neither of which are christians.......
Presumptuous of you. No, I'm not.
And, incidentally, Mormons are Christians. Just not your preferred type of Christian, but there's nothing like a good round of exclusionism to start off the post.
I dont know any true christians who have anything against any food based on religion.
Do you know any true Christians, period?
Sorry, but I love that adjective: "true".
I mean, I can point out some freakish diets of Seventh-Day Adventists and so forth, and one can argue that it's more an advisement than it is a holy law, but the simple fact is that the people don't necessarily take it that way.
Would you please define a
true Christian, and give me some idea of how many there are? Because I've got this image in my head of an old Greek man with a lantern.
I'd rather not listen to him, he's sick by any standard!
Isn't that beside the point?
I've heard old (ie 70+) people complaining about lots of books too, some are just plain offensive! also, pleanty of times I've heard christians asking why there arent christians books available (ie christian fiction), but thats just b/c its difficult to find that type of book anywhere because of all the non-christians complaining about too many religious books! It goes both ways
Where to start?
•_You know, if you know me well enough, you'll hear me complaining about various books. It's part of a human being's birthright to have an opinion. But I won't ever say that something shouldn't be printed. I'll even go so far as to admit that the public is best off without some information, but I won't stop people from printing it or reading it. And if something ever horrifies me so greatly as to demand its expungement from the human experience, I would hope to have better reasons than my own opinion of it.
• You know, I've never witnessed a book burning put on by atheists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, pagans, &c. I probably missed a couple of torchings of
The Satanic Verses, but Rushdie survives a death sentence and I'm happy enough about that. But to my common experience, only Nazis, Stalinists, and Christians burn books regularly.
• I despise the American economic priorities. However, this time they clearly explain part of what you're complaining about. If "Christian" books sold better than they do in general bookstores, the bookstores would order more of them. Consider Bob Larson's
Dead Air, Frank Peretti's mysteries, and those insane books about the coming apocalypse whose author and titles I thankfully cannot remember? Of those last, I see them at every bookstore I go to except for the mystics. I see them at Costco, Fred Meyer, Wal-Mart ... just about everywhere I go. Add to that the general Christian media presence: Satanists do not get their own section at Dalton's or Waldenbooks. You can certainly make an argument that these books shouldn't be sequestered as they are, but if they're not, they don't sell at all. If the books sold better, they would integrate, just as those that do have in the past and will continue to in the future. As it is, the segregation of certain Christian volumes is a smart business move because customers for those books like having them gathered together, and don't seem to want to have to pick through shelves lined with the latest Martin Greenburg anthology of erotic horror fiction. In addition, I might point out that my child's maternal grandfather sent us a satellite dish designed to receive
only Three Angels Broadcasting Network, one of at least
three nationwide and international US-based Christian television networks. Televangelism is a multibillion-dollar industry in this country. Has it occurred to anyone
why it is ironic that
The Simpsons has been pointed out to be one of the most "Christianized" television shows on the air? Eyes shut, hands clamped over their ears, shouting ceaselessly, it's no wonder why some Christians feel so isolated.
That is against certain artists, NOT music in general..........music is meant as a gift to the world (according to many christian beliefs) in fact, the book of Psalms is a song book (all of it is songs), music is one of the many ways to worship God so christians cannot be against it and be following biblical principles at the same time! However as I stated before, some artists (like Marilyn Mansin) are just plan sick and people with any moral values should be appalled! (I felt this way LONG before I was a christian)
Those "certain artists" (A) have every right to be as they are, and (B) have those rights for the same reason you are allowed to find them sick and depraved.
Think about this: Nobody's saying you can't be appalled. But what people are saying is that you can't censor them. These Christians who have so stained the reputation of their faith essentially demand that their right to free speech is only secured when others are disallowed the same right.
Often, the objectors to a Twisted Sister or 2 Live Crew or a Marilyn Manson end up making a bigger deal out of what they find objectionable than anyone else. The PMRC's targeting of 2 Live Crew, coupled with the arrests of Luke "Skywalker" on multiple occasions in Florida, pushed 2 Live's record sales through the roof. A "Parental Warning" sticker became a badge of pride. Marilyn Manson rode the controversy from NIN sideshow to Antichrist Superstar. Twisted Sister? Come on--a bunch of New York guys originally in drag, and then in ribbons, football pads, and leather pants? Even Dee Snider laughs about his costume.
And consider how seriously Christians take things. Both Styx and Peter Gabriel were condemned in California for having Satanic material on their albums. At question for Styx was the song "Snowblind", a reflection on cocaine addiction that does not paint the drug in a glamorous light. And Peter Gabriel? "Shock the Monkey" did just that, and suddenly the man who recorded "Solsbury Hill" and "Here Comes the Flood" stood accused of Satanism. Or the band Savatage, whose dungeons-and-dragons approach to rock and roll gained them criticism for Satanic imagery. In 1991 they released "Streets", hands-down the most Christian rock and roll album I've ever heard, and an artistic triumph. Sure, Michael W. Smith sold better, and I wouldn't be surprised if DC Talk had a better year, but nobody noticed because it was an artistic triumph in a dead vein of rock and roll. It had nothing to do with its faith and politics; I used to find the album heavily anti-Christian. Its commercial failure came from the fact that everyone was already sick of that brand of rock and roll. But a band who was known to have included the lyric, "We should have listened to what Christ had to say" has taken flak for being Satanic. Or Bob Larson, who must edit the lyrics he reprints in order to have examples to crow about. Who never understood that the kids
read the liner notes on albums and, often, have already dismissed the very disputes he seeks to manufacture.
This isn't just about "certain artists". It strikes at the heart of Free Speech. Music cannot be accepted or rejected based solely on Christian and post-Christian values. Speech cannot be curbed merely to meet a faith standard. It
is about music in general because the would-be censors speak nothing about the repugnant imagery of a handful of Christian hymns ("Onward Christian Soldiers", "Glory Glory Hallelujah!", &c.) It is, in fact, about determining what qualifies as "music", and thus affects the whole of musical expression. Ever watched someone dance the Charleston? It's technically not a dance. Specifically: some slave owners in the American south forbade dancing among their slaves; it was too pagan and beastly and sexual. But the slaves were smarter than people at the time thought. They invented the Charleston because the religious folk had specific rules about what constituted dancing, and the Charleston breaks none of them. In the modern day, I tip my hat to an associate of mine who reminds that, "Quakers don't dance; they rhythm."
I always look at the rest of Christendom and then I look at the Quakers and wonder what is wrong. The Quakers seem, for the most part, comfortable with themselves. I can't get why others are so insecure as to attempt to bend society into conformity. I must admit that when my political needs encountered the Society of Friends, we were always on the same side of the fight. But seriously: Quakers don't dance. And their answer to that is a lot simpler than the Charleston. That's actually what I mean when I say people take things too seriously. On the one hand is a complex set of rules with enough loopholes to invent the Charleston; this is a sign of overthinking prohibition. To the other is a general prohibition and a very easy way around it. Don't think a Quaker lost in the rhythm doesn't thank the slaves for their contribution. But they generally know their faith is their own and are willing to trust God to deal with the rest; I have great respect for what I see in their behavior.
Of course the drawback here is that Quakers flip basic theology on its ear. George Fox was a dandy, tellyawhat. For myself, its a convenient relationship of respect and trust. Quakers trust God, and I trust them to do so. It's what they choose, but they're not so obsessed with the possibility that they've chosen wrongly that they have to visit their miseries on other people. Unfortunately, they're a fairly unique minority in the Christian world.
Maybe you havent tried enough artists, there are many christian bands and albums available.........POD is a great example........also try Five Iron Frenzy, Relient K, Lost Coin, etc
I admit I haven't listened closely to the latest flock. But if POD is a great example, then I have to say the market is about what it was when I was 18: the Christian imitations of style generally failed to live up to their genres. King's X, for instance, is one of the greatest bands I've ever had the displeasure of listening to. But I'll tell you, when they hit the nation with their post-Soundgarden slop single in the early 90s, all the Christian hipsters I knew threw away their Petra albums and proclaimed new champions of rock and roll. You know, if they were on the ticket at a show I was going to anyway, I wouldn't walk out on them. But they weren't that great. In fact, they lacked compared to the genre they imitated. But in that case, King's X has good company: Rush's grunge-era project sucked almost as much.
thats a whole different issue
Why?[/quote]can you reference that? I hadnt heard that.....at any rate, divorce is not acceptable according to more fundamental christians as well as catholics so are those so called 'christian marriages' actually christian? the census was recently completed here (canada) and it revealed that many people call themselves christians but do not practice religion, therefore they arent actually christian, so all studies should keep that in mind.[/quote]Going back to the same place I got it before, I find the 2001 numbers, more recent than those I remember, show a slightly better trend, and so these I submit with whatever implications:
•
Barna Research, August 6, 2001 release
•_
Barna Research "Family" page
at any rate, divorce is not acceptable according to more fundamental christians as well as catholics so are those so called 'christian marriages' actually christian?
Here, you'll
love this:
"When Christ was Gay: What many Christians seem to forget":
The Religious Right is nearly half-full with people living in continuous adulterous lifestyles, and those who are not remarried fully accept their remarried brothers and sisters without question. They even perform their adulterous marriage ceremonies in their churches. Yet they have the gall to preach from their pulpits or shout through the airwaves that God wants us to stop the world from accepting homosexuals the same way they have been accepted by God.
Jesus warned us not to be like the servant who was forgiven his debt by the grace of his lord but then used the legal system to throw a fellow slave in jail. The Religious Right, however, claim God's grace for their own lifestyle sins but then turn around and give tremendous amounts of time and money to use the legal system against homosexuals.
It is a double standard. It is a mockery. If Christ took their sins to the cross and became an adulterer through propitiation before burying that sin in the ground, then Christ also took the gay person's sin to the cross and became a homosexual before burying that sin in the ground. The Religious Right, and everyone else, should either accept that God's grace covers all of us, including those living in sinful lifestyles, or that none of us are covered. They should either condemn their remarried members or shut up about those among us who are gay.
[/font=times]Just a convenient coincidence. I keep that URL tucked away for just such occasions. I love that article. It's funny enough on the one hand, and to the other it seems to be correct.
the census was recently completed here (canada) and it revealed that many people call themselves christians but do not practice religion, therefore they arent actually christian, so all studies should keep that in mind.
This is a curious problem that is left only to the Christians to resolve. We, the infidels, cannot be of much help here. After the regular reminders of how evil and stupid we are, after being decried as being responsible for bringing God's wrath onto the US on 9/11 ... you know, we're just kind of sick of it. Christians, if their faith and identity through faith is that important to them, must work to re-establish Christianity as something other than the nagging voice in the corner.
I WAS taught the theory of evolution as fact!!! so why cant the creation theory be taught as fact as well? in my opinion both should be presented, holes and flaws and all but neither as absolute fact
Well, for starters because Creationism isn't fact. You can paint any case for Creationism you want, but without a definitive demonstration of the existence of the architect or executor of the Universe--e.g. the Creator--Creationism remains scientifically untestable. From the facts we have available to us, what is called Evolution Theory is the most viable explanation. Our knowledge of it increases daily, and we have a large sample of positive trends suggesting that we are clearly on the right track. Based on the facts, evolution is fact. One of the things you have to realize about a scientific theory is that once postulated, it never stops getting samples for consideration. Evolution Theory is not some wild idea constructed from nothing. It is a framework based on observable data, and the term describes its aspiration to contain the whole of that puzzle. What Evolution Theory is today is not necessarily what it will be tomorrow. But if scientists were on the wrong track, the evidence would have shown them by now.
Creationism is an assertion that has no real meaning. By some poetic licenses, it can be reasonably said that yes, God did create the Universe. But Christians generally don't like to liberalize their Bibles to that degree; it takes the sting out of other asserted realities.
Furthermore, Creationism seeks a dualistic arena. The possibilities are myriad. Even if there is some quirk of natural law we haven't found that will shatter the Evolution Theory to merely a good idea that failed, this is not indication of Creationism. I always wonder what will happen to a Christian when they find God and realize it's nothing like they were taught to expect.
as I stated in another thread somewhere, Religion explains they 'why' of the universe, Science explains 'how'....science is great, it allows us to understand how this came about or how that works, but religion tells us why it came about or why it exists, otherwise there's no reason for anything
That's a mighty big presumption. Religion asserts "why". It does not explain "why".
Thats a new one to me! in one of the old testament books there are references to large monstrous creatures that could be described as dinosours along with the humans so why should they say that its not possible for a dinosour and human to have walked near each other?
Well, there were big, scary creatures running around the Earth in the days of the human ancestry. They're currently digging mammoth remains off the California coast, documenting the timeline of its extinction and realizing that people did the damage. But the big scary creatures weren't giant lizards with walnut-sized brains. I was very happy a couple of years ago when I saw videotape of a narwhal; I thought the poor buggers were extinct. If there's anything in the sea that looks demonic to me, it's jellyfish; I've never seen a live giant jellyfish eye to eye--we get the smaller varieties around here. But the IMAX version certainly makes them scary.
that argument doesnt make sense! it sounds like it came from someone who has no idea what they're talking about
I know, I know. But that's the point: this is how Christianity is being portrayed by people who claim the faith and seek to champion its cause. These are the kind of faithful I refer to when I write things like: Plenty of literate people get tired of being called sinful degenerates because they read a given book--ever listen to a Christian protesting a book in a public library?
once again you have to first determine if they are truly christians (and first you have to define christian)
Here is where I agree with you. But I tend to be foolish and take people at their word. Somebody, somewhere, has to trust people generally, or else nobody will. But again I have this strange image of an old Greek man with a lantern.
Salvation hasnt turned people into prigs, people have turned people into prigs! (assuming that prig is the same as prick).....what bothers me is when people who say they are christians do/say all sorts of things that go against the bible which is SUPPOSED to be their guide to life/God and then justify it by using the bible!
While it's true that people have become more priggish over time, we cannot pretend that the paradigms exist independent of the people. In consideration of, say, Max Weber pointing out intrinsic connections between Protestantism and Capitalism, can you tell me how different Christian faith would be without American Christianity? While certain aspects of Protestant asceticism contributed greatly to the development of modern Capitalism, so has Capitalism contributed greatly to the consequent development of people within its scope. Even Americans are not true Capitalists, but when money became more important than life, many Christians went right along on the bandwagon. In a sense, if we mark "WASP" values in the US, many Christians led the charge.
In the end, it is left to Christians to clean up their own house. It is up to the faithful to set right their brethren, to bring them spiritual fulfillment instead of empty declarations. We, the infidels, can certainly recruit the best and brightest among them for intellectual liberty, but some insist on maintaining spiritual fetters. I cannot express the importance of the "image" of Christianity being put forth by the squeakiest wheel. Furthermore, it is inappropriate and distasteful to "grease" them according to the standards of Christian history, but that's the point--the world is moving forward while this ample and vocal bloc literally tries to haul the whole lot down into a heap. As the rest of the world moves toward peace and reconciliation, this substantial bloc of Christian insanity pulls harder toward the divisive abyss.
Thus I hold that the fundamentalist movement is indeed losing ground. They might be getting larger, they are definitely getting louder. But they are also increasingly irrelevant to the situations at hand. However, George W. Bush makes sure to keep them relevant, just in case the country somehow isn't tired of being browbeaten.
There are some Christian organizations that try to understand, but they are few and far between, and involved in fringe issues like harm reduction and alternative political theory. They are, however, outweighed by the self-righteous and blathering.
I understand what you say about the idea of "true Christians", but here is my lantern, here is my search.
Length? Don't worry about it. Seriously, ask around. Don't worry yourself about the length. 
thanx,
Tiassa
