Founding Fathers Quote of the Day

<<Look at how many "Christians" were 100% in support of a bunch of men who used the name of Christ to rape children. I can't think of anything more dispicable, but it doesn't matter. Just reassign them to another parish and start over. You can do whatever you want, as long as you accept Christ.

These child rapers will go to Heaven, and Ghandi will go to Hell.>>

Actually, you're wrong. As I already stated in a prior post, there are those Christians that profess a faith in Christ, but whose works make it evident that it is not a saving faith.

Secondly, you are referring to the Catholics...Catholics believe in a combination of saving faith and works. The Catholic faith is much differant than most other Christian sects. There are those, in fact, that would argue that Catholics, because of their basic belief system, aren't really Christians.

Pug

 

"But, the Bible does not teach salvation through morality, it is through Christ."

That is your interpretation of what the Bible "teaches." Not everyone believes the same thing or interprets it the same way as you.

--------------------

Secondly, you are referring to the Catholics...Catholics believe in a combination of saving faith and works. The Catholic faith is much differant than most other Christian sects. There are those, in fact, that would argue that Catholics, because of their basic belief system, aren't really Christians.

 

<<How is this a lie?

I said:

"Look at how many "Christians" were 100% in support of a bunch of men who used the name of Christ to rape children."

Are you denying that this happened, or are you denying that there were some Christians who supported the perpetrators?>>


Your sweeping generalizations are really unfair. Yes, there were probably Christians in support of the perpetrators. Were they right in showing their support? I have no idea. I can only say that I was NOT in support of them. That being said, there were probably also LOTS of non-Christians that supported the perpetrators and felt they deserved another chance. Many showing their support may have been kind, decent folks. What's your point???

Can I just add here that I think it's remarkable that virtually any conversation about Christianity frequently causes such anger and hostility from non-Christians. I shouldn't be surprised though...the Bible is clear regarding man's intense rebellion, as well as his future hatred of Christ's followers.

Pug

 

Logically, this whole thing falls apart. What about those who lived before Christ? Clearly, they had no opportunity to devote themselves to Christ. Did they receive some sort of exemption from hell?

Why then did God decide to send his son to earth 2000 years ago? Was there no need for divine intervention before then? Didn't early man need help? The ancient Greeks? The dinosaurs? Were there no sinners before year 0? Haven't early men and women always needed help with their fornication and their desires to be "bad"? So has hell only been populated for 2004 years? Is hell filled with all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans etc.? Wouldn't they all have been completely surprised to find that they were bound by laws that had nothing to do with their own religion? Does this make any sense?

This is why Janko's Bible reference on another thread re Arafat made no sense. Ignoring the question of whether Arafat was evil or not, the idea that Arafat should be bound by the Bible is nearly preposterous. I'm no fan of Arafat, but I feel fairly certain that he died feeling he had fought for the right side. The idea that Arafat would give a rat's ass about what the Bible says is laughable. Laughable not because he isn't evil, but laughable because it's not part of his orthodoxy (and isn't that part of the whole conflict to begin with - everyone trying to impose their own orthodoxy?)

It's like throwing a flag on Barry Bonds for roughing the passer. It just don't apply. Devout Christians will of course say that it does apply. That is their point – that the rules of Christianity apply to all of us whether we like it or not. My response: that’s not the point; that’s the problem, because the tacit assumption in that belief is that "My religion trumps your religion."

 

And exactly where did I make a "sweeping generalization?"

The church "showed its support" by reassigning these pedophiles to a differnt parish so that they could molest more kids. Yes, that was wrong.

As far as I know, there were only two groups who believed that these men deserved "another chance" (to rape more children) -- Christians and pedophiles.

My point is that raping children is bad.

Apparently, you think that Ghandi and these child rapists were moral equivalent. I disagree.

Actually, that's not true. They are not the same. These child rapists will go to heaven, while Ghandi is in Hell.

 

No, they did not receive an exemption, but they were not living under the dispensation of grace. They lived under the dispensation of innonence, promise, law, etc. -- Different covenants for different people in different times. This is exactly why dispensationalists make no judgments pertaining to the salvation of the Jewish people. I simply don't know how it works if you reject Jesus as the Messiah, but choose to continue to live under the dispensation of the law.

Where did I (or pug) say that these folks were moral equivalents. Gandhi was a moral man, child rapists are not. They are equally condemned without Christ (grace), but in now way were they "moral equivalents". Without repentance, there is no grace.
Why do these debates always, I mean always, have to retreat into hyperbole?
I have tried to be honest and direct in my answers. Yes, it is possible to be forgiven and receive grace at the last second of life, but a "changed life" is still required. It cannot be a confession out of fear.

Then how do you account for John 8:58?

What a hateful thing to say!

 

grgrwll, weren't you offended when someone equated homosexuality with pedophilia the other day? Christianity isn't deviant behaviour (it's the norm).

 

Yes, I was. And that somehow proves that I am evil? Or what?

I would never call Christianity deviant behaviour. I would point out that there are FAR more non-Christians in the world than Christians.

 

Man, hell is gonna be packed!

 

"Yes, Ghandi was evil, as was Hitler, as are you, as am I, as is Kansasbaptist, as is everyone. "

I thought that was the implication of this statement. Perhaps I was wrong.

Uhhmmm... isn't this a rhetorical question, or an oxymoron, or something?

Well, you see, I don't have to, because I'm not a Christian.

How do you explain the fact that the Starship Enterprise can travel faster than the speed of light, yet be unaffected by time dilation? Clearly, this proves that Captain Kirk is God.

I happen to think there are many mistakes and exxagerations in in the Bible. But just for grins, here would be my account:

Biblical Unitarians

No, it's not. Saying "Yes, you molested little boys, so we are going to assign you to a new city so that you can have some fresh victims" is hateful. Telling children that these perverts are God's representative on Earth is hateful.

Pointing this out is not.

Nothing you can say, no names that you call me, no hatred that you spew is going to take away what these men did. And instead of denouncing them, you ridicule me for pointing out how evil they are.

Typical.

 

<<And exactly where did I make a "sweeping generalization?">>

You continually insist on grouping Christians into one big general category, without allowing for the reality of a true vs. claimed faith, and without allowing for differences of opinions and behavior within the individual person. Just like it would be incorrect for me to say "democrats are finatic-leftist-liberals" or "republicans are conservative-religious-nuts", so it is also wrong to say "Christians are this" or "Christians are that."


<<The church "showed its support" by reassigning these pedophiles to a differnt parish so that they could molest more kids. Yes, that was wrong. >>

In your example, "The church" did NOT represent Christianity. It only represents the Roman Catholics, and even then, there was a great deal of argument and difference of opinions within the RCC. Its official "support" was not unanimous by any means.


<<As far as I know, there were only two groups who believed that these men deserved "another chance" (to rape more children) -- Christians and pedophiles.>>

Sweeping generalization at its its best, completely unsupported by any factual data, and an incorrect generalization to boot. Again, the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) does not represent Christianity, it only represents catholicism. And again, it's a terrible generalization to even say that all Roman Catholics supported the official RCC decision on this matter. Did ALL democrats vote for Kerry? Did ALL republicans vote for Bush? Do ALL Muslims become terrorists? Come on...you really have to get a grip with your generalizations and all-encompassing inclusions.

<My point is that raping children is bad.>

Totally agree with you 100%.

<<Apparently, you think that Ghandi and these child rapists were moral equivalent. I disagree.>>

Not even a little bit true! I think Kansasbaptist addressed this issue nicely.

Again, the venom in your words and disposition is alarming. Relax...we're just talking.

 

<<I thought that was the implication of this statement. Perhaps I was wrong.>>

Yes, you were wrong. Please see last post by Kansasbaptist.

<<Well, you see, I don't have to, because I'm not a Christian.

How do you explain the fact that the Starship Enterprise can travel faster than the speed of light, yet be unaffected by time dilation? Clearly, this proves that Captain Kirk is God.>>

Why do you insist on using hostility and sarcasm? Are you incapable of normal conversation?

<<No, it's not. Saying "Yes, you molested little boys, so we are going to assign you to a new city so that you can have some fresh victims" is hateful. Telling children that these perverts are God's representative on Earth is hateful.

Pointing this out is not.>>

You missed the point, I believe you know you missed the point.

<<Nothing you can say, no names that you call me, no hatred that you spew is going to take away what these men did. And instead of denouncing them, you ridicule me for pointing out how evil they are.>>

I don't think anyone has called you a name or expressed any hatred toward you, nor do I see where anyone has ridiculed you in any way. In fact, I believe everyone here agrees that molesting a child is a morally degenerate, evil act.

Pug

 

Again, exactly where did I do this?? You have made this claim before, and then apolgized for it, in case you forgot.

The only generalization I see is that I said that the vast majority of Christians believe that the only way to salvation is by believing in the divinity of Christ. That's it.

And where did I say these things that you are condemning me for?

Tell that to the little boys who were raped. I'm sure it will make up for everything.

How is this a generalization? I didn't say that all/most/many Christians supported this. Do you deny that there was a large group of "Christians" who supported these men and assisted in their efforts to rape children?

And, again, I didn't say that. Can't you address my point without making up a bunch of crap and attributing it to me?

Fair enough. I misunderstood.

Venom? You make up a bunch of crap, accuse me of saying it, and then accuse me of being venmous when I defend myself. You've got to be kidding me.

 

Can you provide one, just one post where I called you a name of any kind. I have been respectful in addressing your comments.
In fact you called yourself an idiot and my exact response was
--I promise I never have nor ever will think your an idiot on any level.

Please provide one post where I have "spewed hatred"? Why would you even say that unless it was to provoke. I even tried to clarify my position by stating that the position I took was out of love and compassion. You may not believe that, but how do I spew hatred? I hate nobody.

I said in previous posts
--Gandhi was a moral man, child rapists are not.
--Without repentance, there is no grace.
--A faith that does not manifest itself in a changed life, compassion, and love is not a saving faith.

Again, I would respectfully ask how? I have treated you with nothing but dignity and respect.

Why do you make things up?

 

You've got to be kidding me.

"Are you incapable of normal conversation?"

That is not sarcastic?

Give me a break.

Oh so typical.

 

True. I was just pointing out that you and your Christian brethern can do whatever you want, but it is not going to change the fact that these priests use the name of Jesus to rape children, and that their church helped them in their efforts.

Perhaps when you accused ME of being hateful for pointing out that a large number of Christians supported the child raping priests.

Clearly, morality is irrelevant. Child raping priests are rewarded by spending eternity in Heaven, as long as they repent on their death bed.


You can spend eternity with these rapists. I'll hang out with Gandhi, the Dali Lama and Buddha in Hell.

 

grgrwll,

I've been through this with you before. It is nearly impossible to converse with you because you continually change the subject, evade the point, I believe intentionally, and become outrageously hateful.

You try to put words into peoples mouths and accuse people of calling you names, while in fact you are the one who attacks and name calls....and Yes, you do make sweeping generalizations.

I know that you will probably reply to this by asking "when did I call you a name?" or "what generalization?" Then you will call me a right wing Christian whacko, and somehow compare me to Hitler.

Do what you will, but anyone can read the previous posts and see your tactics.

 

<<True. I was just pointing out that you and your Christian brethern can do whatever you want, but it is not going to change the fact that these priests use the name of Jesus to rape children, and that their church helped them in their efforts.>>

I agree with you on this issue 100%. My issue is that you still, even after all of this dialogue, refuse to accept that the RCC or any other Christian sect does not represent Christianity as a whole. Where have you generalized? You generalize every single time you fail to draw a distinction between groups and individuals within those groups. Yes, their church supported them in my opinion. Did Christianity support them? No. Did most Christians support them? No. (FYI- Most evangelicals support very little the RCC does.) Did most Roman Catholics support them? No. A majority of bishops supported them by not holding them accountable.


<<Child raping priests are rewarded by spending eternity in Heaven.>>

Again, an unfair generalization. I think you are under the impression, no matter how much Kansasbaptist and I explain otherwise, that just because someone says they believe in Christ that they go to Heaven. We don't believe this. We have repeatedly said that a saving faith produces good works. I have specifically said that a lack of good works from a professing Christian may be an indication that he/she is not saved.

I really believe there are three problems here:

1) You believe that salvation (in the Christian faith) should be an earned reward for good moral behavior. You continually use Ghandi as your example. If salvation was awarded based on works (good moral behavior), Ghandi might just get a front row seat. The fact that salvation (in the Christian faith) is not based on this system outrages you.

2) Your belief that someone verbalizing their faith in Christ automatically means (in Christianity of course) that they go to Heaven. A priest, in your example, rapes a child and goes to Heaven because he believes in Christ. This view is not an accurate one at all.

3) You don't understand, or don't want to understand, how many differences there are between Christian denominations, and how much division there sometimes is even within a denomination. This opinion is evident by your generalization that Christians and pedophiles support priests that rape children. That, my friend, is a sweeping, irrational generalization.

Pug

 

When did I call you a name?

What generalization?

 

Give me a break. When you talk about Islamic terrorist, do you always make a point to explain that not all Muslims are terrorists? Of course not. It's understood. Just because you talk about Islamic terrorists doesn't mean that you are making any kind of generalization about Islam, does it?

Yes, and you also agree that a person can commit as many evil acts as they want -- even do it in the name of Christ -- and as long as they ask for forgiveness one second before their death, they will go to Heaven.

And the Dali Lama will go to Hell.

Do you disagree?

Yep. Evil people go to Heaven, good people go to Hell. The only thing that matters is which football team you root for -- Ooops. I mean which church you go to.

Actually, it doesn't outrage me at all, because I know it's a lie.

I guess I did misunderstand. What does one have to do, in addition to believing in Christ, in order to go to Heaven?

How many times do I have to explain this before it gets through?

I did NOT say that all/most/may Christians supported these pedophile priests. I said that one of the groups who supported them was made up of Christians. That's a fact.