Letters to the Editor
-
Reply
"Less troubling and more charmingly humorous is the Christian apologist's tendency to re-define as un-Christian any examples of Christian persons or behaviour that might embarrass the apologist in a debate."
There is no re-definition of Christian behavior as un-Christian-- what a senseless statement! Jesus Christ is the model for Christian behavior; He is the standard.
Perhaps, in your attempt to be arch, you are trying to say that when a Christian behaves in an un-Christian manner, his behavior is called (by Christians) "un-Christian." Well, duhhh.
Or do you mean to say that a Christian who behaves in an un-Christian manner is called an "un-Christian?" (rather like an un-cola?) Nope, he is still a Christian.
Are you implying that Christians never admit to engaging in un-Christian behavior? Au contraire. We sin all the time. Can't help it.
Look, my very un-Christian desire is to show you up as a boob and leave you in the dust, but I think you are merely ignorant. If you want to read a good book sometime, why not The Good Book? Or talk to a Christian? And listen.
-
Hmm
I also note with some sadness, Ann, that you didn't bother to follow up in regards to the so-called woman-hating of Jesus. Since you instead proceeded to try to attack me by mocking some brand of generic literal Christianity, I assume that means you don't know much about modern Christian theology /or/ the content of the Christian Bible. And by modern I mean dating back to the Enlightenment.
You seem to be doing exactly what the conservative right does: Rather than figuring things out for themselves, they simply rely on second-hand observations (in their case, everything in the Bible is true because "the Bible tells me so" as that stupid old camp song goes, and in you case, adherenance to an unenlightened, oversimplified modern critique of the Bible because the non-Christian, self-proclaimed "intellectuals" tell you so).
People have a tendency to fear, and therefore attack, mock, or belittle, things they don't understand. I would suggest beefing up your knowledge of modern theology and Biblical study before you try to duke it out with a Christian scholar who really knows his or her stuff, unlike an amateur like me.
If your knowledge of the Bible or modern theology is really stronger than I've characterized it as, feel free to argue against my points in terms of the feminist content of the Bible and the foolishness of the view that all modern Christian thinkers interpret the Bible literally.
-
Huh?
"You would have found out that the only thing I hang my hat on is that God so loved the world that God came to suffer among us and truly understand what it was like to be human."
And the difference between the above-stated and what the ass-kicking Ms. Ominous mocked in your wacky belief-system is---um---what, again?
(By the way, you'd kinda assume that an omniscient dude like god would just, like, you know, KNOW automatically 'what it was like to be human' without having to knock up a virgin, become the fetus, and get his ass nailed to a board 33 years later---know what I mean? -he'd just wiggle his nose like Bewitched and poof! He'd KNOW. Or ain't he omniscient as advertized?)
-
Ann, you forgot the other tactic
"Less troubling and more charmingly humorous is the Christian apologist's tendency to re-define as un-Christian any examples of Christian persons or behaviour that might embarrass the apologist in a debate."
Expand the meaning and definition of Christian such that all good things and/or behaviors are Christlike or Godlike. That way they straddle both sides of the fence.
-
Ooops!
Bee-“There is no re-definition of Christian behavior as un-Christian-- what a senseless statement!”
Chloe- “As for your so-called critique of Christianity, I have to say it's sad that you haven't met any Christians who are actually, well, Christian.”
I think you two co-cultists oughta try to get your stories straight before you represent your wacky beliefs in public.
-
Heh
Sorry, afterso many high-browed philosophy classes I tend to assume that everyone has as confused and 'sophisticated' a view of the world as I do. Metaphysically speaking, "omnipotence" and "omniscence" are straw men and meaningless. God created the world of logic, and cannot do the logically impossible. For example, try maintaining an omnipotent God while asking the old question "Can God create a stone so heavy that God cannot lift it?" Or can God answer the question "What is the shape of the color yellow?" I suppose by the old-fashioned definitions of omnipotence and omniscence, that makes God none of the above. Frankly I think, and lots of theologians agree, that it's a non-issue. It's like asking whether the king and queen are married in chess. It doesn't mean anything.
Likewise, if God is one thing and humanity is a separate thing (and, by modern theological standards not limited to Christianity, most people think they are), then God cannot know what it is to be human without actually being human. This is where my "Christian ambivalence" comes in... intellectually, I have some difficulty believing that 2000 years ago some guy named Yeshua was actually the literal son of God, he died in a very unspectacular fashion (like all of us), and he rose again. That's the beauty of the thing, though, you don't have to believe the truth of a thing to believe the Truth of it. Regardless of what actually happened in Palestine 2000 years ago, the story itself is so True that I cannot not believe it in the very depth of my soul.
-
Huh? pt 2
"I suppose by the old-fashioned definitions of omnipotence and omniscence, that makes God none of the above."
...Um...Chloe? Never mind. As long as you're not doing crack or snatching purses I guess it's okay...
-
smile
Oh Humbert, that's a little sad, and a little funny. You are aware, in this world of ours, that people can hold opposing viewpoints, aren't you? I was pretty sure that was a given.
By the way, if our beliefs are so wacky, what, may I ask, are /your/ beliefs?