Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I understand that this thread isn't about history, comments like this are like fingernails on a chalkboard to a trained historian (me, for instance).
It wasn't a comment. It was a question. The comment was that which the question was challenging. If you don't consider things in the context within which they were stated, then you're assured, as in this case, of missing the point. Recall, we're not talking about condemning Harry S Truman. We're talking about a comment made by someone living today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
I'm not a fundamentalist who believes everything in the Bible is 100% the word of god with no exceptions. Believe it or not, not all Christians are fundamentalists.
There are Christians who maintain that that makes you not-a-Christian. If the matter pertains to what Christianity is, was, and/or represents, then due to Christianity's own poor policing of itself and poor track record with regard to consistency over time, any significant projection of Christianity is fodder for a legitimate characterization of Christianity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Yes, it makes avoiding the problems in the Bible so much easier, but no one has explained to me the criterion for deciding which parts are literal and which are not, except for the convenience of the believer.
Precisely, and that's why all Christian complaints about relativism are vacuous, since the aforementioned generalized Christian inconsistency is the truly grievous form of relativism - relativism not grounded in the firm foundation of fastidiously consistent theology but rather "grounded" in whatever bits and pieces of Christianity the Christian chooses to consider canon and thereby use to hold up the framework of whatever it is they actually want to be true.
It wasn't a comment. It was a question. The comment was that which the question was challenging. If you don't consider things in the context within which they were stated, then you're assured, as in this case, of missing the point. Recall, we're not talking about condemning Harry S Truman. We're talking about a comment made by someone living today.
There are Christians who maintain that that makes you not-a-Christian. If the matter pertains to what Christianity is, was, and/or represents, then due to Christianity's own poor policing of itself and poor track record with regard to consistency over time, any significant projection of Christianity is fodder for a legitimate characterization of Christianity.
well, The point was you made it clear that you thought that nuking Japan was wrong. I don't care about Christianity when a comment like that is made. If I miss understood your point and you thought it was an acceptable choice; than my bad. "acceptable" not necessarily meaning a "good". If i was wrong, sorry
Now, to the point of did the USA helping in 2 world wars, science advancement, technology break through, keeping communism from speeding, and all of the humanitarian aid it gave and still gives make up for whipping out the Indians?
I don't know. But when we start labeling Christians "bad" for certain events we must list what they did do to stop the event or other things they did good. That list had another side to the story. I also put forth that Christianity had little to do with those events and human greed had far more of an influence. And as long as we are blaming the wrong thing we will never lessen religous power that way.
That list is like someone claiming "communism" is a result of atheists. Its less than a half truth. Atheist do not police their own either. A lot of groups don't.
Raising/lowering the quality of life seems to have a far greater impact in lowering religions grip. The more "real hope" we can give people the less they need "false hope" to press on.
well, The point was you made it clear that you thought that nuking Japan was wrong.
Actually, what was clear from my point was that lauding the nuking of unarmed civilians, as you did, is what was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Now, to the point of did the USA helping in 2 world wars, science advancement, technology break through, keeping communism from speeding, and all of the humanitarian aid it gave and still gives make up for whipping out the Indians? I don't know.
Thanks for changing your tune. It shows growth to admit you were wrong, even in this back-handed way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
