-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 07:58:21 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Bellagio 10452
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Chuck, based on your Christianity quote...
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Chuck, based on your Christianity quote...  (Read 25162 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kirk Lowdermilk
Smiley Smile Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 7



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2006, 09:07:10 PM »

Quote
I don't believe in transubstantiation.

Im not Catholic but I believe that one. I'm Lutheran.

Missouri Synod?
Logged
Old Rake
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2006, 09:27:07 PM »

Quote
Jon, I think you're reading WAY  more into it than is necessary. I think your problems with Chuck are causing you to read what he said differently than what was actually stated. He didn't say *you*; there are those in fact who do believe that, sad to say. I know of several personally.

Oh, really? He's specifically quoting me *directly*, at least twice, and indirectly several other times, in his original message. You don't think that gives me a basis to feel personally slighted?

Oh no, of course not, we all know the Smile Shop people are just "overly sensitive." Angry

Quote
Right...him being banned there affects what he can and cannot say here.

My point is: he's NOT banned over there. And he knows that, he was just there today, REGISTERED, browing the site. So why he chose to comment on my comments indirectly, HERE, where I'm not a regular poster, rather than a) on my blog, where I MADE the comments or b) on the Shop, where an ongoing discussion of religion is happening that he's clearly following but not participating in, is beyond me.

Quote
nor did I mean to slight or question your faith by treating you like a second class Christian, as people sometimes do by referring to groups of Christians with intended insults like "right wing fundies."

So you're not referring to me personally when you're talking about people who think Jesus was an "alright guy" who provides a "moral code for living"? And again not referring to me when you're saying that some people think its okay to strip the Bible of certain passages where convenient? Despite the fact that you're directly quoting my words on a blog when you're talking about it, albeit twisting them around to say something I absolutely and totally did not mean?

Dude: your entire paragraph is designed to call people who believe that stuff second-class Christians, and by quoting me directly, it certainly seems that you're absolutely including me within that group. Despite the fact, again, that I did not intend to imply even a single item that you're saying I did. Nor do I believe any of that.

When you attack someone by quoting them in your signature line, or making fun of their site design on your message board, or "quoting them" "indirectly" within your writing, you've provided yourself with a wonderful plausible denial, Chuck. And in case you were wondering, that is why I'm constantly calling you passive-aggressive. Its so easy to make digs at people subtly like that and then just deny they ever happened.

I'm sorry I called you a right-wing fundie. A better tact to take might have been to find a quote of yours that exposes you as right wing, or as a fundamentalist, and put it in my signature line without comment. And if I get called on it, deny it ever happened, or deny I meant anything by it. That's the Smiley Smile board way!!
Logged
Old Rake
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2006, 09:34:36 PM »

And yes: I am legitimately sorry I called you a right-wing fundie, Chuck. It was said in the heat of the moment of responding, I was pretty angry, and I apologize.
Logged
Sir Rob
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 291



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2006, 01:25:19 AM »

There's nothing wrong with Jesus having a wife.

I have to disagree.  To think that God, taking the form of man, with the sole purpose of creating a following of truth and a salvation to allow for entry into heaven, would find a romantic love in a woman with sin at the same time he is carrying out his mission is pretty ridiculous.  Why would God need that same satisfaction that a marriage would bring when he was only here for the above reasons?

Just seems like people try to take human thoughts and emotions and apply them to Christ, which is wrong-minded.

But Christ was human.  His sacrifice and suffering would be pretty meaningless if he wasn't.  This was the theme of 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. 
Logged

In history, we painted pictures grim.  The devil knows we might feel that way again.
Sir Rob
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 291



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2006, 01:29:25 AM »

Jesus's suffering and death on the cross was the balance, the payment, the necessary demand of the law, for our sins.  Without it, no one would be able to spend eternity with God in Heaven, as there is no room for sin there. 

So what happened before Jesus?  Presumably Heaven was empty as there's no one without sin, surely?! 
Logged

In history, we painted pictures grim.  The devil knows we might feel that way again.
Charles LePage @ ComicList
Chairman Of The Board
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 982


Hit me with your pet shark.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2006, 02:53:24 AM »

My point is: he's NOT banned over there. And he knows that, he was just there today, REGISTERED, browing the site. So why he chose to comment on my comments indirectly, HERE, where I'm not a regular poster, rather than a) on my blog, where I MADE the comments or b) on the Shop, where an ongoing discussion of religion is happening that he's clearly following but not participating in, is beyond me.

I've been able to browse the Shop board, registered and unregistered, since the "exodus."

Whenever I've posted anything I've been re-banned.  And I've been asked to not post anything on the site.  I chose to comment on your comments here because I was asked here about your comments.  Clearly you are registered here, are welcome to post here, and are willing to post here.  I did leave a comment at your blog.

I think we, and I, just went through Ian bringing an argument here and stirring the soup, and I really don't have the will to go through it anymore.  I'm more than happy to discuss most anything, but I really don't have the energy to trade clever insults right now.
Logged

"quiet here, no one got crap to say?" - bringahorseinhere
jazzfascist
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2006, 04:38:06 AM »

There's nothing wrong with Jesus having a wife.

I have to disagree.  To think that God, taking the form of man, with the sole purpose of creating a following of truth and a salvation to allow for entry into heaven, would find a romantic love in a woman with sin at the same time he is carrying out his mission is pretty ridiculous.  Why would God need that same satisfaction that a marriage would bring when he was only here for the above reasons?

Just seems like people try to take human thoughts and emotions and apply them to Christ, which is wrong-minded.

But Christ was human.  His sacrifice and suffering would be pretty meaningless if he wasn't.  This was the theme of 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. 

Yeah, that's also what he said when he hung on the cross, "My God, why have you abandoned me", it seems that he himself lost the connection to God and started wondering if God himself did actually exist.

Søren
Logged

"How can I come on, when I know I'm filthy"
Old Rake
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2006, 06:31:39 AM »

Chuck: I have not one bit of interest in trading any insults with you, nor of "stirring the soup". How about we call it a truce, and we take whatever discussion regarding personal theology to private emails? I'd actually enjoy discussing things with you,I just don't think I want to do it in a public forum where I am completely, apparently, incapable of responding to you without getting pissed off!

Deal?

Truce?

Deal?

Logged
Charles LePage @ ComicList
Chairman Of The Board
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 982


Hit me with your pet shark.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 12, 2006, 06:37:25 AM »

Deal.  Don't sweat it, I seem to have that affect on people.  Or is it "effect?"  I don't know.
Logged

"quiet here, no one got crap to say?" - bringahorseinhere
I. Spaceman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2271

Revolution Never Again


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: April 12, 2006, 12:26:37 PM »

Quote
I think we, and I, just went through Ian bringing an argument here and stirring the soup

f*** you, motherfucker. Read the thread and see who started it. Go to hell.
Logged

Nobody gives a sh*t about the Record Room
Jonas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1923


I've got the Beach Boys, my friends got the Stones


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2006, 01:11:54 PM »

Quote
I think we, and I, just went through Ian bringing an argument here and stirring the soup

foda you, motherfodaer. Read the thread and see who started it. Go to hell.

Irony at its finest.
Logged

We would like to record under an atmosphere of calmness. - Brian Wilson
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1IgXT3xFdU
Bubba Ho-Tep
Guest
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2006, 01:21:47 PM »

 3D
Logged
Charles LePage @ ComicList
Chairman Of The Board
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 982


Hit me with your pet shark.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2006, 01:23:02 PM »

Is telling a Christian to go to Hell the same as questioning their faith?  Inquiring minds really don't want to know.
Logged

"quiet here, no one got crap to say?" - bringahorseinhere
Cabana Boy
Guest
« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2006, 01:28:18 PM »

I appreciate Ian. He digs Spacemen3!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logged
Rerun
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 167



View Profile
« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2006, 01:50:29 PM »

There's nothing wrong with Jesus having a wife.

I have to disagree.  To think that God, taking the form of man, with the sole purpose of creating a following of truth and a salvation to allow for entry into heaven, would find a romantic love in a woman with sin at the same time he is carrying out his mission is pretty ridiculous.  Why would God need that same satisfaction that a marriage would bring when he was only here for the above reasons?

Just seems like people try to take human thoughts and emotions and apply them to Christ, which is wrong-minded.

But Christ was human.  His sacrifice and suffering would be pretty meaningless if he wasn't.  This was the theme of 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. 

Yeah, that's also what he said when he hung on the cross, "My God, why have you abandoned me", it seems that he himself lost the connection to God and started wondering if God himself did actually exist.

Søren

Even though he told his disciples that he would soon die?  Even though the criminal on the cross found faith through Christ as they both hung there?  How would he have lost faith when he understood his purpose to the very end?

Through God, he performed a multitude of miracles, and when he fulfills his destiny, which he knew about, he questioned God's existence?

It just doesn't make much sense to me.
Logged

"Today, in our increasingly secular world, loving one another doesn't just mean "loving."  It means being forced to accept as normal those behaviors and lifestyles that are absolutely abnormal.  It's not enough to live and let live.  You must chant their mantra as well; you must repent, renounce your own values, and pronounce those of the radical left as superior and adopt them."
jazzfascist
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: April 15, 2006, 07:30:04 AM »

There's nothing wrong with Jesus having a wife.

I have to disagree.  To think that God, taking the form of man, with the sole purpose of creating a following of truth and a salvation to allow for entry into heaven, would find a romantic love in a woman with sin at the same time he is carrying out his mission is pretty ridiculous.  Why would God need that same satisfaction that a marriage would bring when he was only here for the above reasons?

Just seems like people try to take human thoughts and emotions and apply them to Christ, which is wrong-minded.

But Christ was human.  His sacrifice and suffering would be pretty meaningless if he wasn't.  This was the theme of 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. 

Yeah, that's also what he said when he hung on the cross, "My God, why have you abandoned me", it seems that he himself lost the connection to God and started wondering if God himself did actually exist.

Søren

Even though he told his disciples that he would soon die?  Even though the criminal on the cross found faith through Christ as they both hung there?  How would he have lost faith when he understood his purpose to the very end?

Through God, he performed a multitude of miracles, and when he fulfills his destiny, which he knew about, he questioned God's existence?

It just doesn't make much sense to me.

it would make perfect sense, Christ would be totally abandoned and his suffering and doubts would be equal to that of other human beings that dies. If he was sure that he would be saved, his crucifixion would be more like an act or a show.

Søren
Logged

"How can I come on, when I know I'm filthy"
Old Rake
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: April 15, 2006, 07:35:50 AM »

There was a school of thought in early Christianity that espoused that exact view, Soren. One branch of early Christianity believed exactly that -- that God abandoned Christ during the crucifixion.

They got it from the book of Mark, who espouses something very close to that. We have a Christ in agony during the crucifixion, in anguish, pleading with God to end his suffering and finally crying out that God had abandoned him.

The idea is that Christ, to fully atone for our sins, would have had to be, at the moment of his death, most FULLY HUMAN -- and die the way a human would die -- alone, in anguish, in pain, and un-comforted by his holy powers.

Another branch of Christianity held that Christ, rather than being in anguish, was actually calm and collected all through the crucifixion. Again, you can look at the book of Luke -- Luke actually was written late enough that he uses Mark as a source, but you can see how he took Mark's crucifixion scene and changes it around to make Christ completely calm. He takes out the suffering so prevalent in Mark and has Christ almost chatty -- talking calmly to the fellow crucified criminals, totally calm and collected.

I guess I tend towards the former viewpoint, probably.
Logged
Jeff Mason
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: April 15, 2006, 07:59:41 AM »

Actually, this is how I have always took it --

Jesus was on the cross obviously to pay the price to appease God's wrath over sin.  He has enjoyed unbroken fellowship with the Father for His entire life.  Once on the cross, there had to come a point when the sins of the world were applied onto Jesus so He could take them away.  At that point, Jesus in some way (can't get it all clear; God has revealed some of this but it still is a mystery) BECAME sin.  Since the Father cannot stand to look upon sin, He turned away from Jesus while the sacrifice was being made.  At that moment the unbroken fellowship was temporarily gone.  The pain of the torture, the cross?  Bearable.  Jesus was calm.  The pain of the loss of the Father for any period of time?  Sheer agony.  Thus, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"  and a change to anguish.  I think that for a short time the Father did in fact turn His back on Jesus.  But I don't think Jesus DOUBTED for a moment.  He just had to deal with the pain of His mission and His choices and the loneliness He had never known.
Logged
jazzfascist
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: April 15, 2006, 08:42:13 AM »

There was a school of thought in early Christianity that espoused that exact view, Soren. One branch of early Christianity believed exactly that -- that God abandoned Christ during the crucifixion.

They got it from the book of Mark, who espouses something very close to that. We have a Christ in agony during the crucifixion, in anguish, pleading with God to end his suffering and finally crying out that God had abandoned him.

The idea is that Christ, to fully atone for our sins, would have had to be, at the moment of his death, most FULLY HUMAN -- and die the way a human would die -- alone, in anguish, in pain, and un-comforted by his holy powers.

Another branch of Christianity held that Christ, rather than being in anguish, was actually calm and collected all through the crucifixion. Again, you can look at the book of Luke -- Luke actually was written late enough that he uses Mark as a source, but you can see how he took Mark's crucifixion scene and changes it around to make Christ completely calm. He takes out the suffering so prevalent in Mark and has Christ almost chatty -- talking calmly to the fellow crucified criminals, totally calm and collected.

I guess I tend towards the former viewpoint, probably.

Yes, I guess I would go with the former too, otherwise Christ's crucifixion wouldn't really be the supreme sacrifice. Also Christ going along with what he felt was God's plan, wouldn't really be an act of total faith either. Faith I guess, is believing despite your doubts.

Søren
Logged

"How can I come on, when I know I'm filthy"
carlydenise
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


Heaven


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: April 15, 2006, 04:38:34 PM »

I was born into the Catholic church, somehow I ended up going to Lutheran as a younster, have been Methodist for a few years...I am a spiritual shopper I guess....I am actually more spiritual than religious.  I have never really understood why there are so many denominations, shouldn't it be just one faith under God?   Undecided
Logged

come be my redeemer...awaken me beautiful dreamer
Reverend Joshua Sloane
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


Since I cannot rouse heaven I intend to raise hell


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: April 15, 2006, 04:51:34 PM »

I seriously cannot grasp faith in religion myself. Why does "sin" and "goodness" mean anything? Why is there such an emphasis placed on these two things? People do bad things and they do good things. I don't believe that i'll ever find peace with religion, it seems i've been destined to remain absent of any faith.
Logged

Did it ever occur to you, Cable, how wise and bountiful God was to put breasts on a woman? Just the right number in just the right place. Did you ever notice that, Cable?
Jeff Mason
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: April 15, 2006, 05:58:02 PM »

I was born into the Catholic church, somehow I ended up going to Lutheran as a younster, have been Methodist for a few years...I am a spiritual shopper I guess....I am actually more spiritual than religious.  I have never really understood why there are so many denominations, shouldn't it be just one faith under God?   Undecided

I actually think that the split into denominations is sort of God's will.  See, the last time we had a universal church, it grabbed secular power under Constantine.  God has made substantial revelation of His character, but He is so big that we still can't grasp Him perfectly, even grasping just what He has revealed.  I think that the core: the need for Christ, the nature of Christ, how to relate to God, the Scriptures, etc -- are clear enough to grab.  But the more peripheral issues -- how do you baptize?  What does a church service look like?  How do you do communion? -- aren't so clear.  So God allows denominations to let Christians relate with those who take the same stance on non-essential issues so that we don't rub against each other too hard on a weekly basis.  All denominations should agree on things like the Trinity, the humanity and deity of Christ, the purpose of the cross, and so on.  But not necessarily on things like whether you perform liturgy in church or not.  It does occasionally make things confusing, but given the fallenness of human nature it's probably better than the alternative.  The Bible teaches two things it calls a "church": 1) a local body of believers, which we tend to identify with a group who all worship in the same building.  2) the collection of all believers in all groups all over the world.  Denominations are man made, but I think that they probably are a good thing properly understood.  The idea of a "Baptist" church vs. a "Methodist" church is a man made distinction not a biblical one.
Logged
Susan
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 446



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: April 15, 2006, 10:25:03 PM »

I've never given it much thought, but i like your explanation, Jeff.  It allows for differences within the same Body of Christ, as it were. 

I've always believed that Jesus was a pretty tolerant guy...this fits with that, so to speak.

Happy Easter to all.
Logged

All of My Dad's Truck's on-line tracks all in one place!
wind chime
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 130


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: April 16, 2006, 01:03:46 PM »

I was born into the Catholic church, somehow I ended up going to Lutheran as a younster, have been Methodist for a few years...I am a spiritual shopper I guess....I am actually more spiritual than religious.  I have never really understood why there are so many denominations, shouldn't it be just one faith under God?   Undecided

I actually think that the split into denominations is sort of God's will.

I've always felt the opposite...but every single church has it's own flavour...even within denominations... Cool
Logged

Watcher of the skies...watcher of all...
zelilgirlI1cenu
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: April 16, 2006, 05:05:24 PM »

Interesting how people are asked to keep away from politics on these boards because it can be "offensive" ..... but not from religion.

Just an observation.
Logged

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.492 seconds with 21 queries.