Thinking Christians?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Take our freedoms, for instance. Our forebearers fought tooth and nail for specific freedoms then, that we frankly couldn't give two hoots for, today.

Perhaps the forefathers of the U.S. fought for freedoms that might not be considered as important today. Care to site some examples of the specific un-hooted freedoms you had in mind?

I disagree with your claim that there is more access to the 'truth'. Certainly, there is access to far more information than ever before, but this can't be considered as leading to any sort of absolute or objective 'truth'. Especially not from a Christian perspective, since some of the information to which we now have access can be used to show errancy in the supposedly "inerrant" word of god. I think you might be suffering from a pretty severe case of wishful thinking.

I'm also not sure that we are (collectively) the biggest group of idiots who ever trod the Earth. We are definitely the biggest group, but I'd venture a guess that access to all that information has reduced the overall percentage of "idiocy" among mankind.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In my quest, virtually all religions were considered, but all were found wanting, for sundry reasons.

How did you decide the relative merits of the competing claims? How were different religions found wanting?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
How do we decide the relative merits of the competing claims?

I'd like some specifics.

There's no need to give me the full dissertation. Just tell me how you were able to reject the claims of Muslims that the Qu'ran is the true scripture, and that the Christian scriptures offer some truths mixed with egregious errors.

Failing that, give a reasoned answer to bbarr's observation that based on your initial response you appear compelled to acknowledge that those born in Islamic states must be stronger than those born in the United States.

I can tell you, based on my thorough study of the Christian scriptures (including some study of the Greek texts) and my initial forays into the Qu'ran (wholly in English translation), that if expressions of the glory of the creator were the fundamental criterion, Christianity would be found wanting. Allah is far more magnificent in the Qu'ran than Yahweh appears in the Bible.

Originally posted by David C

Care to site some examples of the specific un-hooted freedoms you had in mind?
For instance, the right to bear arms. They were willing to die to make it so; now we debate as to the use of the same.
Freedom from unlawful search and seizure.
Due process of the law.
Jury trials.
States' rights.
Will this list suffice?

I disagree with your claim that there is more access to the 'truth'.
What is readily available today far exceeds what was readily available 100 years ago. For instance, one can find virtually any translation of the Bible, in addition to multiple commentaries of the same, on the internet.
Any one who possesses the price of admission can purchase software containing a plethora of biblically-related concepts.
The seed is plentiful, the harvest is diminshed.

I'm also not sure that we are (collectively) the biggest group of idiots who ever trod the Earth.
So, in conclusion, you would say our leaders are getting better as time goes by, or worse? Compare T. Jefferson with, say, W. Jefferson Clinton. Or, George W. Bush.
Or, how about John Adams with Gerald Ford?
Leadership is a direct reflection of the population.
Beyond leadership, what of something so seemingly innocuous as entertainment. Can you honestly assert that what passes as entertainment today would have been even tolerated 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 300? Their rejection would not have been based on how much better today's entertainers are over yesteryear's.

Originally posted by Wulebgr

I'd like some specifics.
Agreement.
First, the Bible must be allowed to say what it has to say. It must be accurately interpreted, by a qualified, trained pastor, who utilizes the original languages. This interpretation must then be put into contemporary language.

Once this is accomplished, whatever field of study in view must be put into proper perspective. For instance, history. Overall, does the Bible say something that can be disproven historically? Or, in opposite form, does any bit of history contradict what the Bible asserts as having occured?
Generally speaking, whenever seeming contradictions have popped up, it was the result of one of three things. One, we were reading the Bible incorrectly. Two, we were reading history incorrectly. Three, we did not have enough evidence for one or the other 'side' to make a conclusive determination.
Because it has yet to be shown that there exists a contradiction between any field of study and the accurate reading of the word of God, I see agreement which bolsters the side of belief in the Scripture.

The same cannot be said of "Another Testament of Jesus Christ," the Qu'ran, any of the JW literature, etc., etc. As you specifically requested bulletpoints, I'll not offer dissertations of the same.

Conclusions.
The logical conclusions of the major religions, in my opinion, did not line up with this glorious thing we call life. This, coupled with their lack of agreement with other fields of study, made me reject their claims of veracity.

give a reasoned answer to bbarr's observation that based on your initial response you appear compelled to acknowledge that those born in Islamic states must be stronger than those born in the United States.
I thought I had already done just this thing. Those born where Christianity is not easily accessed must cross a stronger tide to arrive at its bank. From my observation, no stronger tide against Christianity exists outside of the world of Islam. Thus, one born there needs to overcome a great deal more than did I, if they are to repent to Christianity. I simply got on a bus taking me to vacation bible school, without threat of death or even censure (not counting now, of course).

I can tell you, based on my thorough study of the Christian scriptures (including some study of the Greek texts)... that if
expressions of the glory of the creator were the fundamental criterion... Christianity would be found wanting.
I can assure you, either your study was not thorough enough, or you were attempting to pick up a cracker without taking off your mittens.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Care to site (sic) some examples of the specific un-hooted freedoms you had in mind?
For instance, the right to bear arms. They were willing to die to make it so; now we debate as to the use of the same.
Freedom from unlawful search and seizure.
Due process of the law.
Jury trials.
States' rights.
Will this list suffice?[/b]

This list is interesting, and needs some clarification. For example, consider how the Rehnquist Court developed expansive definitions of State's Rights (Ninth and Tenth Amendments) in a range of cases (Seminole Tribe v. Florida springs readily to mind), undercutting Rehnquist's own reputation as a "strict constructionist," while laboring to chip away at the Burger and Warren Courts' expansive readings of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (which are now severly in danger from the Bush Administration and the Patriot Act). Then, when we look to the Second Amendment, we find almost no one in- or outside the judiciary that reads it with the same expansive or restrictive lens they employ in reading the Fourt and Fifth Amendments, although there are many outside the judiciary who are far from strict in their construction of the Second and Tenth Amendments.

Perhaps you could present a few details as to how you view this particular list of yours.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
This list is interesting, and needs some clarification.

Perhaps you could present a few details as to how you view this particular list of yours.
The list could be expanded and expounded, no doubt. If you wish to discuss case law relative to any of the same, I suppose I could humor you on the merits of any or all. However, to what end, I am not certain.

The list was provided at the behest of that mental snuggle puppy, DavidC, who challenged me to provide overlooked rights. The rights I honed in on, in my observations, were a few of the important ones. These rights were taken with deadly seriousness in the genesis of our country, but are virtually unknown and completely undervalued by today's mainstream citizen. Do you have a quarrel with this assertion?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The list was provided at the behest of that mental snuggle puppy, DavidC, who challenged me to provide overlooked rights. The rights I honed in on, in my observations, were a few of the important ones. These rights were taken with deadly seriousness in the genesis of our country, but are virtually unknown and completely undervalued by today's mainstream citizen. Do you have a quarrel with this assertion?

Yes I have a quarrel. I do not know the specifics you perceive as constituting "deadly seriousness," nor the evidence that leads you to the phenomena of "virtually unknown and completely undervalued," nor how you constitute "mainstream citizen." Thus, I don't know whether you've expressed a view we share, one we can quarrel or even debate, or even whether you've said anything at all.

For my part, I can attest that nearly everyone in my part of the country values "the right to bear arms." It is evident in the bumper stickers and voting patterns, it is evident in the letters to the editor and the coffee shop conversations, and it is clear in the presence of gun racks in the pick-ups that sit outside any restaurant that serves a decent breakfast. Whether this right is understood the way James Madison understood it is another matter, but it most certainly is "deadly serious" for everyone here. I don't know if any of my region's population, however, fits into your category of "mainstream citizen."

Originally posted by widget
Geeze you guys! 😀 I'm beginning to hear the first few plunked notes of Duelling Banjos.

I've always liked Dennis Hopper.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I've always liked Dennis Hopper.

He probably likes you, too, Wooly 😕 But the reference was to incestuous feuding Appalachian inbred rednecks in 'Deliverance' (...spiritual overtones, Freaky!) with Burt Reynolds & Jon Voight (1972)

Originally posted by widget
He probably likes you, too, Wooly 😕 But the reference was to incestuous feuding Appalachian inbred rednecks in 'Deliverance' (...spiritual overtones, Freaky!) with Burt Reynolds & Jon Voight (1972)

My mistake. Somehow my aging mind collapsed two movies--Deliverance and Easy Rider. Both featured Southern "hospitality" (violence) against outsiders. Hopper was in Easy Rider. I haven't seen either movie in more than thirty years; perhaps it's time to visit the archive.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Thus, I don't know whether you've expressed a view we share, one we can quarrel or even debate, or even whether you've said anything at all.

Yes I have a quarrel. I do not know the specifics you perceive as constituting "deadly seriousness,"
The founders of our great country held that some rights of the individual were worth the 'kill or be killed' gamble. Generally speaking, I think it was Payne who cried, "Give me liberty or give me death."
When it came time to numerate the precise rights for which they fought, they narrowed the general concept into specifics, as found within the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

nor the evidence that leads you to the phenomena of "virtually unknown and completely undervalued,"
Not to use the phrase flippantly, but no one is making a federal case out of the abuse by the government on the rights of the citizenry. That Tom and Katie may be broken up (with her seven months pregnant!), is very much a topic of conversation with widespread currency. There appears to be little fanfare or conversation regarding, say, illegal search and seizure. It just doesn't rate that much with folks, for some reason. This is not to say there are no such federal cases being made, relative to any of the rights on the list I provided. There are indeed federal cases being made. This is said to compare and contrast the attention paid to absurdities while the basics of a citizen's life are being slowly eliminated.

nor how you constitute "mainstream citizen."
The majority of people. You can tell what is important to the majority of people by what is discussed in the various modes of media, as well as the people with whom one is in contact. Despite specific editorial agenda, most stories run in papers are mirrors of their audience's interests. Same is true for radio, television, movies, even the various sources on the internet.
I do not consider this website a reliable indication of mainstream folks, as most folks outside of here wouldn't debate, period, let alone spend so much time doing so. Yet even here, the various posts are typically related to emotionally-charged, ambiguous, and inconclusive topics. Very little, proportionately, is given to the eroding of the rights of the US citizenry.

I don't know if any of my region's population, however, fits into your category of "mainstream citizen."
My post was not intended to denigrate any region of people, especially those where carrying guns is a part of daily. Your region of the country and mine are similar, yet debate is bounced every so often on a national scale, relative to whether the right to bear arms should be amended.

"I'm gunna make you squeal like a pig! Weeeeee!"
Disturbing movie.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm gunna make you squeal like a pig! Weeeeee!"
Disturbing movie.

Exactly what inspired the remark... 😉 Remember the albino banjo savant?

Originally posted by widget
Exactly what inspired the remark... 😉 Remember the albino banjo savant?

There are things the mind wishes to forget.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There are things the mind wishes to forget....

But perhaps should try to remember? :'( Christians are the hillbillies of the modern world!