Lon
Well-known member
Thank you, you too. I trimmed over half of this, still too long. If you respond, I'd encourage you to trim what isn't meaningful to you as we par it down to something manageable.
My Ba, is in Bible. The MA also emphasizes teaching history, but Bible is mostly history and theology in degree. In order for me to have grasped the necessary theological implications of the OT, historical interpretation was necessarily part of that degree, as was church history.
For the most part, especially with stone-throwing as the historical motivation in mining, these conversations tend to be free and loose without care or concern for context. I think the Old West sets us up well for discussion concerning interpretation: It in fact, was not wrong to duel in the Old West and was their only way to settle matters where law had not caught up. Was it even preferable? :nono: BUT you cannot historically call into question their values nor say ours are better. That is historical abuse. It isn't relative, but an actual understanding of what 'had to happen' at the time it happened. We are careful, too, about saying what is good and bad about another culture than our own. We try to help preserve the values that we share in other cultures. An abuse of history is also an abuse against the present day culture that carries that history, and thus is both careless in the contextual accusation, as well as carelessly by derivative, in attacking, say a Christian, for the Crusades. It neither allows for legitimate reasons for that war, or for Christianity today to disassociate with it. An atheist China, this past century, had killed more Christians for instance, than all peoples killed in all centuries up to that point, but the Roman Catholic Church. My point again is that I'm far removed from those centuries past as a Christian. What is not as far removed but a better tack than trying to 'likewise' associate, is simply to defend your own separation from atheist killings this and last century, as well as address how your worldview is set up to combat a devaluing of human life compared to say, being the creation of a Deity, etc. That would have been a better approach than erroneously dredging history, imho. -Lon
I think we need sabbaticals so we can do a better job of integrating as well as appreciating. We only have so many resources but our hearts are probably in the right place.
There is no way to eradicate Christianity from America.
That a tribe has a "Christian Indian Cemetery" doesn't mean they don't exit :idunno: They are not erased and many of them wouldn't go back.
It will never happen and cannot ever happen. This, btw, is something to look within yourself in concern. It isn't appreciating what Christianity truly does that is good in the world. No American is forced into Christianity, and it is impossible. It is a meeting of Christ on His terms. Only He can make a Christian. Some identify as "Christian" by way of social association, I realize that, but people are always going to meet Christ and such has ever been the case with or without persecution. A relationship with God is not predicated upon whether it is forbidden by another man or government.
Again, this is something for you to look inward over. Europe may not be growing, but God will always draw men and women to Himself. Numbers aren't the only way to understand Christianity. I think outreach is important and thus a shrinking church is troubling, but Christ is real and meets people. People would come to Christ even if there was a starting over, with no Christians on the earth because Christ exists and has set about saving men and women.
The more light the better. Dark isn't best.
Nor of Christians.
Just like we could ignore the Twin Towers? :think:
Agnostic doesn't 'deny' God's existence. You aren't even philosophically open to 'exploring ideas' with 'atheism' as a moniker. I'm pretty sure I've exactly the right grasp of atheist philosophy on point. Even an agnostic is closing off some logic due to overt skepticism. I'm perhaps working on Sociology on that point, but it is the wider philosophical discipline and sister to it in my mind.
Again, do some introspection, you didn't ask. I've tipped my prowess hat a few times in thread.
Such only illustrates my problem with the fallacy further: the example is an absurd in this given.
Again, an astrophysicist might say 'because I said so.' You are taking it as a command, rather than as what is likely a fact. He doesn't always have to explain himself, especially if you are turning a bolt the opposite way than tightening it on a rocket.
By 'wrong,' my focus was application. Example: Steven Hawking has been wrong on a few points concerning black holes, therefore one would assume that appeal to authority doesn't necessarily make him right (true). However, only another astrophysicist could challenge him to prove him wrong (and such was the case). That's where the theory is misapplied for the overt-amateur-skeptic.
I think 'demanding' forgiveness a bit audacious. Expected? Yes. On this point, I'm sensitive to both bodies here, so I'm not against the action, but okay with a few "not right now's."
As long as it isn't just a cursory nod, counted as if it had some significant impact. :up:
Did you not think I knew the definition of "positive?" I'm not sure if you got my point, which was that Christian people out-give atheist people. You were questioning that statistic but it is well documented.
We disagree
Two points: 1) it was a 'for instance' and 2) you are right, it isn't a source if you are lazy. Barna Research has participated in even Gallup Polls and is well established and respected for their research and integrity.
It is vulgar to talk about money in comparison, but not in giving. There is nothing vulgar about people living because I have sacrificially given. Is it to blow my own horn? :nono: Theirs. They are important to me, that's why I mentioned Compassion International specifically as well. It isn't but to encourage the same in others. That alone, they specifically, is my only reason to be 'vulgar.' It isn't for any other purpose. I'm no rich man, it is a sacrifice and so I encourage others to contemplate the same. I pray our employers will endeavor to enable us more toward those endeavors.
Perhaps I'm vulgar in expression, but love for fellow human beings needs the feet, dirty or not. I merely want people to 1) see it is being done (not necessarily by me but for example) and thus 2) to dream big and desire to do the same. Does it have a vulgar shaming? That isn't my intention. If you are debt, light a candle and share a blog. Even a prayer, by an atheist to 'my' God, would be appreciated as sentiment, not for me, but for them. Perhaps even a Google search would bring a serendipitous moment for our mentioning here.
Those resources have exchanged many many hands since then. I'm not especially sharp on economics, but I do realize we are suburban and urban these days. The $ trail is long gone imho.
There are problems with applying Romans 12:5 in a post Reformation world and the verse isn't talking about unification in particular, but balance and inclusion on a local level: We need each other's specific giftings to function. Read Romans 12 for context to see if I am correct or not.
I do realize it is individually utilitarian, but it also is social, whether you particularly believe so or are invested. You do spend a lot of time on TOL, for instance, representing.
A lot of inequity. Think a bit, again. This was a series of wars, started 'among' Christians. The Crusades were a better example in that it was two among Muslim and Catholic, but those too, were more about feudalism on par with criminal syndicates warring against each other's turfs. It is what happens when few control the majority. The Catholic church set about enforcing its will, both political and theological, with war, which made it a political entity. Conversely, the United States are set up with power in the hands of people, but occasionally with oligarchy tendency. Even that isn't too problematic provided it isn't representative of minute interest groups (talking sociologically).
For this, it is helpful to look to Ireland for some perspective because there are some meaningful correlations. First, the culture itself allows for violent confrontation. Second, we can see that much of the conflict that has ensued has not a lot to do with religion, if at all.
A conflict doesn't make a war, we see that in America today, though violent people do act out violently. Perhaps that speaks more directly to the thread OP and may satisfactorily answer it?
Because they are all dead. An interview or two with these would demonstrate any connections clearly, especially when an interviewer is trying to answer this exact question. However, many of their letters and online postings do convey connection.
We are somewhat responsible for society at large, though I can't control a mob demonstrating, I can vote.
Last edited: