Debates
02 Jul 04
02 Jul 04
Originally posted by kirksey957
Oh no, absolutely not.
I have the impression you are preaching an interpretation of the gospel that people want to hear, hence your popularity among what you could call freethinkers. You want to "make the tent bigger", as you've stated somewhere. Therefore you are not preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ but the Gospel of Kirk, based on some beautiful, innocuous not committing thoughts and ideas taken from the Gospel of Jesus Chist. That's why they flatter you. You are telling them what they want to hear. If you look at the matter more closely you are in fact also flattering them.
You mock your own faith in more than one thread, receiving much applause from your fans. You mock your own brothers in Christ, again receiving approval of those who have showed time and time again their disdain, disrespect and disgust for Christians ..... The more they show their disdain and disgust, the more you praise them ....... what are you doing Kirk ?
02 Jul 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeMy God Ivanhoe, you're a barrel of laughs this evening!
I have the impression you are preaching an interpretation of the gospel that people want to hear, hence your popularity among what you could call freethinkers. You want to "make the tent bigger", as you've stated somewhere. Therefore you are not preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ but the Gospel of Kirk, based on some beautiful, innocuous not committ ...[text shortened]... hey show their disdain and disgust, the more you praise them ....... what are you doing Kirk ?
Most religious people I know don't think the bible is the word of God. They see it as a book written by humans to explain God. They think everyone will go to heaven unless they commit attrocious crimes. They are reasonably pleasant people to hang around.
This weird brand of christianity that you seem to be promoting is beyond rationality. Not only is it impairing your logic, it's actually making you sound like a cultist.
Believe me. If there is a God and he can create universes, millions of suns, billions of planets, uncounted amounts of animals and insects and plants...he's not really going to care if someone believes there really was a flood or not. Or if a carpenter died a horrendous death thousands of years ago.
Come and join me, my son, in the life we live now. A life of loving each other and not caring about other's beliefs...
It must be the marijuana...it must be!
03 Jul 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeOiy vey! Frankly I think I gave an interpretation of the passage that is rarely if ever heard. If it's OK with you I like the exchange of ideas. If that's "the Gospel of Kirk" , so be it. In terms of making the tent bigger, I am simply doing exactly that in the spirit of Jesus' life and teachings, if that is OK. If not, so be it.
I have the impression you are preaching an interpretation of the gospel that people want to hear, hence your popularity among what you could call freethinkers. You want to "make the tent bigger", as you've stated somewhere. Therefore you are not preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ but the Gospel of Kirk, based on some beautiful, innocuous not committ ...[text shortened]... hey show their disdain and disgust, the more you praise them ....... what are you doing Kirk ?
I have no fans here. I have some friends that represent a vast spectrum of beliefs. We live in friendly co-existence together on the site. Perhaps I get along with them because I do not have an agenda with them. I never intend to mock my faith or anybody else's faith. If I challenge an idea or theology, I hope I am doing it in the same spirit as Jesus did.
So, to answer your question as to what I am doing, that is exactly what I am doing.
03 Jul 04
Originally posted by kirksey957
Oiy vey! Frankly I think I gave an interpretation of the passage that is rarely if ever heard. If it's OK with you I like the exchange of ideas. If that's "the Gospel of Kirk" , so be it. In terms of making the tent bigger, I am simply doing exactly that in the spirit of Jesus' life and teachings, if that is OK. If not, so be it.
I have no fa ...[text shortened]... did.
So, to answer your question as to what I am doing, that is exactly what I am doing.
Kirk: " I am simply doing exactly that in the spirit of Jesus' life and teachings, if that is OK. If not, so be it. "
Do you really think it is in the Spirit of Jesus Christ to approve of killing as a solution to solve human problems ?
If you can show me that stance of yours to be a part of Jesus teachings I will stop being a Christian.
If you can show me that flattering is a part of Jesus teachings I will stop being a Christian.
If you can show me that mockery of the faith is a part of Jesus teachings I will seize to be a Christian also.
03 Jul 04
Do you really think it is in the Spirit of Jesus Christ to approve of killing as a solution to solve human problems ?
You've claimed before that using deadly force in self-defense is morally permissible. So, you also approve of killing to solve certain human problems. You've also claimed that passive euthanasia is permissible if consent is given. So, you also approve of letting another die to solve a human problem.
If you can show me that stance of yours to be a part of Jesus teachings I will stop being a Christian.
How should he go about doing this? Should he provide an interpretation of Scripture consistent with his views? Or would you rather he try to fit his stance to your interpretation of Scripture? If the former, then it seems he already done this, here and there, throughout the forums. If the latter, then it seems he could just as legitimately ask the same of you.
If you can show me that flattering is a part of Jesus teachings I will stop being a Christian.
Aren't you missing a step? First you have to show that he is, in fact, engaged in flattery before you can legitimately ask for justification. What reason do you have for thinking he actually engages in flattery? Is it merely because people like me find his views reasonable? I guess the scientists, philosophers, poets and theologians with whom I also agree must thereby also be engaged in flattery, correct?
If you can show me that mockery of the faith is a part of Jesus teachings I will seize to be a Christian also.
Strange, didn't he just deny that he was mocking the faith. Again, it seems you're missing a step.
03 Jul 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeJoe, I have never advocated killing as a solution. Tonight you are in one of those moods where there is absolutely no right answer to satisfy you no matter how sincere or honest the attempt.
Kirk: " I am simply doing exactly that in the spirit of Jesus' life and teachings, if that is OK. If not, so be it. "
Do you really think it is in the Spirit of Jesus Christ to approve of killing as a solution to solve human problems ?
If you can show me that stance of yours to be a part of Jesus teachings I will stop being a Christian.
If yo ...[text shortened]... that mockery of the faith is a part of Jesus teachings I will seize to be a Christian also.
03 Jul 04
Originally posted by kirksey957Kirk: "Joe, I have never advocated killing as a solution. "
Joe, I have never advocated killing as a solution. Tonight you are in one of those moods where there is absolutely no right answer to satisfy you no matter how sincere or honest the attempt.
You do not reject the killing of unborn children and if I remember correctly you do not reject active euthanasia as a means of solving human problems.
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeHi Ivanhoe,
Why restrict the battlefield to religious value systems?
Why not include secular ideologies such as marxism, anarchism, socialism, communism, greenism and liberalism, libertarianism and capitalism, woman's lib-ism, feminism and animal lib-ism, Buddhism and Utilitarianism, Neo-Kantian-ism and Existantialism, personalism, materialism, idealism and fas ...[text shortened]... eing from the real non-ideological reality ?
...... What is YOUR ideology, Pawnokeyhole ?
I don't mean to restrict potentially fictitious belief systems to religious belief systems: you are perfectly right that any ideology can be held irrationally. In principle, even motivated belief in atheism is possible. For example, some atheists may revel in the lack of responsibility and nililism that their nonbelief can afford. However, some ideologies are better suited to meeyting fundamental human needs than others. In the main, I think that religious belief allays existential fears and bolsters the fragile human ego better than atheistic belief. It's comforting to believe that the universe is fundamentally benign and that you are special, isn't it? It's easier to be motivated to believe that, surely, than that life has no meaning other than that which we can and cannot manage to give it in the finate span of time alloted to us?
My ideology is best describes as skeptical and agnostic even it comes to fundamental questions. Politically, I am generally liberal, though I have a few conservative sympathies thrown in to make me interesting.
Aiden
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by pradtfHi Pradtf,
i think sometimes what appears to be fiction, can become the truth.
as stephen leacock said
illusion is the real reality, because it is better than reality.
in friendship,
prad
ps btw, i generally enjoy your posts which seem to be always well-considered and thoughtful
Well, by truth I meant bare fact, as opposed to Narrative Truth, which you may be referring to--the stories we tell, in a mythological way, to make sense of our lives. Narrative Truth may, strictly speaking, consist of fictions, but this is one reason why I think that fictions may have value, and bare facts not. Hard, naked truth may fail to meet findamental human needs. It may need to be dressed up in more elegant fictions to make life livable, at least for some people.
Aiden
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by kirksey957Hi Kirksey,
I don't know if this relates, but as I was driving around the other day the thought/question hit me: what if the poets, musicians and artists have "it" and the rest of those espousing the truth (for me I focused on the organized church) are missing it. This sort of came out of my experience of going to see Riverdance and having a somewhat spiritual ex ...[text shortened]... in God-given expressions. Lately I am finding more "truth" in poetry than the Sunday sermon.
I think what people mean by finding the Truth, in a religious or artistic sense, is having an experience that makes sense of their lives, or following a particular way of life successfully, not simply endorsing a system of beliefs, although the two do get confused sometimes.
The experience or way is often difficult to express verbally.
"The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao"
--Lao Tzu
Aiden
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by shavixmirHi Shavixmir,
I can think of one very good reason for trying to pop the religious bubble.
Religious people believe in an after life. This entails that they are willing to accept their life, however miserable it is, because they have a promise of a better time when they're dead.
Now. To bring about social change on a grander scale, you need to motivate people now. ...[text shortened]... t because people will accept a lot more abuse on a religious ticket. Dragging me down with them.
Your posts always shake things up.
I sympathize with your argument. However, I can think of a counterargument to. For some people, the thought that this life is all there is is, frankly, unbearable. For these people, life would be too demoralizing without belief. Hence, rather than make the best of their lives, they would get bogged down in their existential angst. They would argue: What's the point in creating a utopia here and now, or striving to get as close as possible to it, if it's all going to come to nothing in the end?
Aiden
05 Jul 04
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeSo what do you suggest as a solution? To accept deception?
For some people, the thought that this life is all there is is, frankly, unbearable. For these people, life would be too demoralizing without belief. Hence, rather than make the best of their lives, they would get bogged down in their existential angst. They would argue: What's the point in creating a utopia here and now, or striving to get as close as possible to it, if it's all going to come to nothing in the end?
Aiden[/b]
I think that would be alright as long as the deception does not effect others. But what if it does? Especially where it is often part of the deceptive doctrine that others should be victimized or should be converted to the deception?
fjord