Yes, that summed up the fundamentalist Christian view quite well for me too. Notice how they manage to get contempt for Britney Spears, contempt for Jane Fonda, and contempt for pro-abortion Christians all into just two sentences.

Was that a Christian article? I didn't think so, but maybe I'm mistaken. Either way, I didn't care for the tone of the article.

The by-line is LifeSiteNews.com and their mission statement includes the snippet ``LifeSite emphasizes the social worth of traditional Judeo-Christian principles''.

Also, ``It has been caused by secularists attempting to eliminate Christian morality and natural law principles which are seen as the primary obstacles to implementing their new world order.'' I'd define ``it'', but I don't think it makes any difference to if they're Christian or not.

Why isn't this news?

It isn't news because it's meaningless until Britney's actions reveal it to be a true conversion. No one cares about a profession of faith if there's no followthrough. And then people won't care because people really only want to know about dirt. But I'm not sure you can really blame the media for that- a whole different discussion of course.

Well, Richard Gere is a Buddhist, which he seems pretty genuine about, and no one talks about that, either, despite it being more off-center.

pro-abortion

I love that term.

The whole terminology thing really gets on my nerves because both sides are determined to demonize the other. Pro-Lifers are NOT "Anti-Choice", they just believe that abortion is a life vs. choice issue and that life trumps choice. Pro-Choicers are NOT "Pro-Abortion" or "Pro-Murder" or anything other highly charged words. They just believe that aborition is a choice vs. non-life tissue issue. It drives nutes when both sides are so content to demonize the other rather than actuall discuss the real question.

The by-line is LifeSiteNews.com and their mission statement includes the snippet `` LifeSite emphasizes the social worth of traditional Judeo-Christian principles''

By reading a few of their other articles, it sounds as if they might also be open to anti-abortion and anti-gay views from beyond the Judeo-Christian sphere. The Spears article is actually quite mild in tone compared to some of the others.

Peter

Well, Richard Gere is a Buddhist, which he seems pretty genuine about, and no one talks about that, either, despite it being more off-center.

Right. That was the second point I made. It isn't dirt so it doesn't get reported.

Of course this all depends on how you define "fundamentalism"

Yeah, i totally agree with you. To get to the root of things, we have to look at our foundation. The term "Christian" was coined as a derogatory statement in Antioch to those who were following the teachings of Jesus, which they happily took as their own. It's one thing to call yourself a Christian, but it's quite another thing when the world labels you a Christian because of what your actions are, and what they see of you.

Christian literally means Christ-like, so that's the ideal. I don't believe that the pilot was a fundamental Christian because Jesus NEVER called anyone crazy. Heck, all He showed was love to everyone, except for when he rebuked those who showed contempt to God.

[edit]I just read your other posts. I guess we're on the same page[/edit]

Christian literally means Christ-like...

I believe a better explanation would be "aspiring to be like Christ", as no one can ever become Christ-like.

Another thing adding to the confusion (and lack of public clarificatoin by Christians) is that "Christianity" is not a religion, it's a collection of religions. You can include Greek Orthidox Catholic, Roman Catholic, 2 differant Lutherans, Southern Baptists, etc etc. So if some people want to collect guns and have sex with 14 year old girls in Waco, TX and call themselves "Christian" there is little I can do about it or care to do about it, because they are not speaking about or representing me.

The abortion thing is getting Off Topic, but I want to thank Jeff (FerretBoy) for clarifying what the abortion debate is truley about.. When you strip away the NOW, the ACLU, the various power players in the church groups, all of which are in the debate for their own political gain, the main issue is "when does life start". That simple.

Can someone get us a 3.00 beta so we have something else to talk about ?

Can someone get us a 3.00 beta so we have something else to talk about ?

Amen.

Can someone get us a 3.00 beta so we have something else to talk about ?

Is that a threat to the empeg guys? "Give us a beta or we'll start talking about religion and/or politics!"

That just might work . . .

This is kind of off topic, but I was fairly disgusted to find out that in my daughter's school (part of the Richmond Public School System), the teachers refuse to explain the meaning or origin of B.C. and A.D. when referring to dates. I think it's fairly ridiculous to bias one's teaching of historical and factual issues simply because they were based on a Judeo/Christian theology. Heck, if I wanted to know why our money says "In God We Trust," I would expect an honest and straighforward answer from a public educator rather than the obligatory "I'm not allowed to say" cop-out.

Yep; for anybody reading this, the whole "virgin birth" ship has sailed (to mix a metaphor).

Yep; for anybody reading this, the whole "virgin birth" ship has sailed (to mix a metaphor).

That was entirly uncalledfor. If we are going to discuss religon and/or politics (and I don't see anything wrong with doing so) then let's keep things civilized and not go insulting or slanderizing other's beliefes. If you have an argument to put forth, by all means, put it forth. But please don't make flippant comments like that and expect others to shrug it off.

the teachers refuse to explain the meaning or origin of B.C. and A.D. when referring to dates

Actualy I was under the impression that everyone had swiched to the B.C.E. and C.E. system (Common Era).

Is that a threat to the empeg guys?

Bring on the debates!

Actualy I'd say this is one of the best talks about religon that we have had in a while. Since the question has been raised "Where do you go to find out how Christians should behave?" I would like to submit that, besides The Good Book itself, C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity is the difinitve source for "What it means to be a Christian." I'd be happy to buy for, and mail to, anyone here a copy.

Actualy I'd say this is one of the best talks about religon that we have had in a while.

Yeah, it's funny how things are much calmer around here lately. Go figure...

... don't make flippant comments like that and expect others to shrug it off.

Don't be flippant, huh? Yeah, I guess that would be pretty much unprecedented on this board. OK, then, how about a question instead: How do you feel about Monty Python's "Life of Brian"?

Yeah, I guess that would be pretty much unprecedented on this board.

Not unprecedented, but come on, just who do you want to immatate?

How do you feel about Monty Python's "Life of Brian"?

I own it on DVD.

Most of it is hilarious. Most of it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ Himself, but rather with the time and culture during which He was alive. Ain't nothin' wrong with that. A few parts bother me, but nothing to get too upset about, especialy when you remember that none of it is to be taken seriously.

I own it on DVD.

Cool.

... none of it is to be taken seriously.

Nor should my "virgin birth" remark and for the same reasons: my intention is not to offend, but rather to amuse with idiotic outrageousness from time to time.

BTW, I ain't one to "immatate" nobody.

Yep; for anybody reading this, the whole "virgin birth" ship has sailed (to mix a metaphor).

I disagree. Though I don't buy into the Crhistian view of the world (virgin birth, 6-day timeline on creation, etc.), I don't see the scientists coming up with anything better...

"Before the big bang, there was nothing. And then that nothingness exploded."

I don't think either side has a lock on the award for "Least Believeable Explanation". While I do tend to lean more towards science, lets be honest: an you prove Christianity isn't right? That there wan't a virgin birth? Just because science has proven some things, it hasn't made an inch of headway towards proving the Christian god doesn't exist. Or the Norse gods. Or really any of the Egyptian, Sumerian, Aztec, etc.

Just remember that everything (even science) comes down to a matter of faith. I may not care for it when Christians smugly point out that they "know" the Earth is only 4,000 years old, but I hate it just as much when I hear scientists talk about "proving" the universe is 12 billion years old. And then they "prove" there are stars which are 15 billion years old.

And then they sit there blinking, confused.

Well I for one "know" that the earth is older than 4,000 years. How? Because when I go outside at night and I look up, I see stars. Stars that are more than 4,000 light-years away. And an old-earth is not incompatable with The Word of God.

Well I for one "know" that the earth is older than 4,000 years. How? Because when I go outside at night and I look up, I see stars. Stars that are more than 4,000 light-years away. And an old-earth is not incompatable with The Word of God.

Don't get me wrong. I also "know" that the earth is older than 4000 years. But I've actually talked to a number of Christians who tell me that's not only insane, it's heretical. But, again, I don't mean to imply that all Christians feel that way.

Well in that case I applaud your honesty.

How do you feel about Monty Python's "Life of Brian"?

Love it. In fact I actually like it better than the "Holy Grail". I know, I know, that's hertical . . .

I don't see the scientists coming up with anything better...

"Before the big bang, there was nothing. And then that nothingness exploded."

I don't think either side has a lock on the award for "Least Believeable Explanation".

And there's the root difference between science trying to explain creation and the Bible trying to explain creation: As soon as the scientists do come up with something better, and have empirical tests to try to prove or disprove it, then the explanation will be modified to fit the new facts. Can't do that with the Bible.

Temporarily putting aside your oversimplified explanation of the Big Bang theory which misstates the current scientific view, I don't buy the Big Bang either. But it's no worse of an explanation than "Before creation, there was God. And then that God made stuff." Both state a point of origin but don't offer any concrete details about what came before that.

Stars that are more than 4,000 light-years away.

i have yet to make up my mind about the young earth/old earth debate, but i did come across a provocative article about someone trying to explain the stars being lightyears away in a young earth thru our current standing of time, space, and matter that einstein started. basically says that we could be very well be living in a white hole (opposite to a black hole). found the article, here. you're welcome to close your browsers once you see what the site's name is, but still an interesting read for those with open minds.

Both state a point of origin but don't offer any concrete details about what came before that.

Actualy, by definition, God exists outside of time. Time is something He created. Therefore any statments such as "before God..." are, well.....invalid.

Temporarily putting aside your oversimplified explanation of the Big Bang theory which misstates the current scientific view

Sorry. The most recent info I'd heard stated that before the Big Bang, there was a lot of nothing (or what was "there" was infinitely small and dense). And then it exploded.

I didn't see how that could be more involved, but if I oversimplified it, I apologize.

What, Tony, is the current scientific view of creation?

But it's no worse of an explanation than "Before creation, there was God. And then that God made stuff."

Maybe we both need to read my post again. I thought that was the point I was making.

Stars that are more than 4,000 light-years away.

[exercise in ridiculous logic]
Just to point this out, saying that light is only just now reaching us that would have been generated 4,000 years ago if generated by the star doesn't mean the earth is 4,000 years old, or even that the universe is that old. Granted, it is HIGHLY likely (%99.9999), but the moment you stipulate that God can create everything in the blink of an eye, you also must admit he can put anything into motion he wants, including energy emissions that are already in progress. If the purpose of starlight was to demonstrate the vastness of the heavens to human beings rather than as a scientific measure of how long stars have been around, that could even make sense.

To think of it in a different light, in the New Testament it is recorded that Jesus made fish appear (apparently) out of thin air. If a scientist had gotten hold of one of these fish he would have concluded that the fish had lived, been caught, gutted by a fisherman, and other things based on solid scientific observation. But he would have been wrong because he made (normally very correct) assumptions about the way the world works. And I don't think this would be construed as "God lying"; the purpose of the fish was to feed people, not give them a lesson about the life of a fish. The same could be true for starlight (though I doubt it).

Of course, scientifically we cannot adopt that kind of reasoning because it would make scientific assumptions meaningless. But I would have to say that any point we're talking about God interfering in the natural order of things science will not be able to adequately explain it because science is based on reproducible and rational behavior.

The whole point of this post is to say we really don't know anything, but we have some very rational and solid ideas. But concerning creation we all have to admit that there is some sense of ambiguity. There's just too much we don't know. Even the Christian who believes that "God did it," still has a lot of unanswered questions.
[/exercise in ridiculous logic]

Note: this is not my view on creation at all. I believe God did it and he created humans as His special creation. Beyond that I know/believe very little. And I think the bible is consistent with "old earth" evidence.

The question would properly be "where did the Christian god come from?".

Which is something that, I feel, cannot be answered. I fact, to paraphrase William Gibson, I think we are defined by our inability to know.