I guess these sort of debates can't ever really happen..it's not even about you and you all know this - but how could it not be personal? that's what defines faith. and it can't be discussed because part of the puzzle is to hear detractors with a view of them as unschooled dividers. and that sort of conviction deals with absolutes and opposites..without God one is godless, absence of good is evil.

but even a scientist is a priest of sorts. you're right though, it's all in the interpretation, maybe illosopher just lacks tact. I saw the question as how do the more knowledgeable and self-reflective among you (christians) justify the weaknesses/corruptions in the doctrine to yourselves?

I mean, I only know illosopher as well as I know you or anybody here so I was responding based on my interpretation - hes not persecuting boodah or nushooz or your personal belief system. it's the entire thing that's being deemed faulty, what paul espoused mainly is under trial..what's resulted from that in Christ's name, was it the same as he taught originally?

>compared to what? again, people are
>people. it's a sad thing
>to say, but many are
>calling themselves ""christain " without
>any real understanding of what
>it means to be "Christlike".
>Look again at his charges.
>Slip Black or white or
>Jew or Japenese or whatever
>where it says Chistian and
>the same will still hold
>to some degree. so again,
>what point is being made?
>christains aren't perfect? who said
>they were? and the leap
>he seems to be making
>is: Christians aren't perfect, so
>christianity is false and that
>is faulty.

people are people but power is power..it's said that the cross is one of the biggest brand logos in the world - so what's behind it. and that's why this debate will/should reocurr, for as long as organised religion remains, and curious souls remain outside it.

>actually, christians are supposed to be
>willing to defend their faith
>to those with questions. but
>(as I've pointed out) we
>instructed to avoid arguing for
>the sake of arguement. if
>he asked: "why do you
>beieve what you do" in
>an effort to learn something
>it would be different, instead
>he seems to be saying
>saying: "these christians are foolish
>sheep, look at all the
>damage they've caused. but I'm
>smarter than that. watch me
>show you"

don't be like that, you know how people are..I'm guessing the intention is to find out if you ever questioned yourselves/faiths and to share any thoughts. a q&a in this usually results in direction to passages/quotes or incidents/emotions we can't all relate to (though some of us truly try).

>>but I don't think illosopher's
>>intentions are to come here
>>and stir up sht,
>
>well then i wish you or he(?) could enlighten
>us, because with him spinning all over
>the place it's hard to get a bead on his
>point.

I'm curious too if there is one, but such debates will continue to rage regardless.

>what questions? i see statements/accusations, am
>i missing something (i very well could be).

harsh views, but they're directed at the general institution, not each christian specifically. and like expertise said, a similar thread could be done on any number of things..religion seems a hotter potato than race..but to denounce cigarettes isn't to denigrate every smoker.

>but my question is: why is
>that wrong, if that's their
>opinion? who is to say
>that the path they have
>chosen for themselves is "wrong"?
>now if one is attempting
>to explain and has no
>sound basis then they're faulty,
>but no one here brought
>this up, he did. i
>could dance with ill from
>now until. we could go
>back and forth, but to
>what end? i'm not gonna
>stop following Christ and follow
>illosophers "gospel", and he(?) seems
>quite intent on staying with
>histrain of thought, so ultimately
>whats the point?

'there's the rub..' as shakespeare wrote, but do you have a sound basis with which to explain yourself? it's not about right or wrong like that..though I guess it is the wrong forum in some sense because you're all intelligent folks that have chosen, rather than accepted, paths..unlike many I know personally that are simply incapable of even concieving of viewing/leading their lives on any other terms - the planet is necessarily limited to your block.

>that's a good question. a better
>qustion is: who am i
>to tell him that it
>isn't?

an actively concerned party perhaps..dunno, I know what you mean. I keep resorting to these abstract metaphors..on my part, I just like to kick it with devout followers to establish if the faith isn't just another mystifying distracting 'outside' factor in a world of many. I've read much of the literature so a follower is like closest thing to the source.

>who is He? God? beyond a
>"stage" in terms of how
>we relate to God?

I just mean the reading materials and what we're given remains the same in every sense so how can it respond to life's organic nature..the way we relate to our own lives even has changed completely.

>key ingredient of ANY faith
>is ultimately gonna be summed
>up in those very words
>"because He/she/it said so". if
>you don't beleieve that they
>did then you gotta roll
>with whatever you decide.

shakespeare's unsolvable rub again..lemme just say here that it's not so much about christianity vs. othereligions. christianity's had by far the most impact on my life thus far, every school I ever attended, from grade to graduate, was named after a saint. it's prominent and it's why I'm interested. I guess illosopher has his own reasons/agenda that he'll eventually reveal.

>that is the choice that you're given.

those absolutes and opposites again.

>illosopher). what's wrong with doing
>a thing that has worked?
>does every lesson need to
>be relearned?

in spiritual terms, yes - I believe that, you've got start somewhere but you've need to start fresh.

>who here said that? the question
>here has mostly been: do
>you REALLY want to know?
>he can be told, but
>if he's not gonna listen
>why waste the breath?

and that first question works both ways..but is that 'rub' surmountable - are you just looking for somewhere to sink your teeth in or are we (and ill) just kicking it.

>consider the "blame claimed".

if only it were that simple..

>there have
>been a whole lot of
>christians who have done some
>foul things (including me), but
>just like my actions do
>not relect all of Black
>people neither to the bad
>actions of christains reflect directly
>upon the faith. if you
>have problems with the faith
>itself then say them, but
>if you have problems with
>the followers the only answer
>you're gonna get is people
>are people.

you're right..what bad actions DO reflect upon christians are those comitted to the faith itself, whenever, throughout time.

>what did you do to get it?

I was born, baptised, raised and educated in it so I guess I was always wondering what I got for doing it.

>did you ask her?

we discussed it all the time until her death, out of four I am/was the only 'hesitant' sibling. but I don't know what I/anybody wants from you all anyway. it's personal and there's a part of me that can't/won't find purchase, the part that says never be content/complacent. I guess I just related to what illosopher meant when he says it's not nature's way.
______________________________________

seize your time! - marley/wailers

wake. from your sleep. - yorke/radiohead