Christian hate group put this through my door yesterday

[Symmetry]

Oh, wait, Symmetry, was it the Sons of Thundr [sic]? That's a completely different group, and they are definitely a hate group.

Here's the anti-gay group's Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Th ... _Church%29

And their website: http://sonsofthundr.com/

They're apparently very liberal when it comes to punctuation and capitalization. =)

The Sons of Thunder, on the other hand, seem ok. They describe themselves as Christian mystics, which sounds kind of funky.

Thanks for trying, but I think only Symm can answer the question. I will take a guess that, in Symm's mind, they are a hate group because they do not embrace and promote homosexuality. I will also take a guess, in Symm's mind, that groups whom chop people heads off for not believing in their religion and stone women to death for getting raped are not worthy of labeling a hate group.

I answered it in the post above yours dude.

[Phatscotty]

Oh, wait, Symmetry, was it the Sons of Thundr [sic]? That's a completely different group, and they are definitely a hate group.

Here's the anti-gay group's Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Th ... _Church%29

And their website: http://sonsofthundr.com/

They're apparently very liberal when it comes to punctuation and capitalization. =)

The Sons of Thunder, on the other hand, seem ok. They describe themselves as Christian mystics, which sounds kind of funky.

Thanks for trying, but I think only Symm can answer the question. I will take a guess that, in Symm's mind, they are a hate group because they do not embrace and promote homosexuality. I will also take a guess, in Symm's mind, that groups whom chop people heads off for not believing in their religion and stone women to death for getting raped are not worthy of labeling a hate group.

I answered it in the post above yours dude.

the Portlandia clip??

[Symmetry]

Oh, wait, Symmetry, was it the Sons of Thundr [sic]? That's a completely different group, and they are definitely a hate group.

Here's the anti-gay group's Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Th ... _Church%29

And their website: http://sonsofthundr.com/

They're apparently very liberal when it comes to punctuation and capitalization. =)

The Sons of Thunder, on the other hand, seem ok. They describe themselves as Christian mystics, which sounds kind of funky.

Thanks for trying, but I think only Symm can answer the question. I will take a guess that, in Symm's mind, they are a hate group because they do not embrace and promote homosexuality. I will also take a guess, in Symm's mind, that groups whom chop people heads off for not believing in their religion and stone women to death for getting raped are not worthy of labeling a hate group.

I answered it in the post above yours dude.

the Portlandia clip??

That it was the latter of the two.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[thegreekdog]

As already mentioned, a Christian hate group is unable to exist. It's like a "Christian evolutionist", a term people liberally throw around that doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever. The two terms both conflict themselves, and in reality cannot exist.

You mean 'Christian evolutionists' like the Pope,and the Archbishop of Canterbury,or come to think of it the vast majority of self-identifying Christians?

"Vast majority" is a gross overstatement...
Secondly the scriptures clearly state that man was created by God, not that man has slowly evolved from bacteria and other species. It is fairly difficult, if not impossible, to claim to be a follower of Christ if you believe in evolution. Much like it is quite difficult to claim to be an atheist if you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord.

I should avoid this discussion, but, well, Catholics (the first organized Christian religion) are evolutionists (or at least the Church teaches that evolution is correct).

Catholics also teach that a mere man behind a screen can forgive sins (which realistically debunks the "Christian religion" claim you throw around- but that's another story), amongst a multitude of other non-biblical doctrine, so the fact that they teach evolution does not surprise me, and should not be used as a promotion for "Christian evolutionism".

I don't think there is a "Christian evolution." I think it's just "evolution."

I would love to hear the argument about how Catholicism is not a Christian religion (although, to be fair, I've heard it before, most recently from someone whose Chrisitian-based religion was founded in 1979).

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[thegreekdog]

I would love to hear the argument about how Catholicism is not a Christian religion

Leaving all the idolatry, worship of false divinities, altering of God's Word and Law aside...
The fact that catholicism teaches that forgiveness of sins is achieved through a man in a booth goes against everything that Christ done for us on the cross.

I'm not out to slander or offend another person's denomination, I'm convinced there are many genuine Christians in the catholic system today, but you must understand that the doctrines of catholicism have been heavily corrupted, and have strayed from the Biblical teachings of scripture.

It is likely that this is an argument neither of us want to engage in given that we're talking about religious preference. I don't have a problem with you believing what you believe; I do have a problem with your critique of my religion. I will note that many newer denominations of Christianity tend to ignore history in favor of convenience and tend to ignore scripture in favor of convenience while making the argument that other religions/people are ignoring scripture.

That kind of discussion always reminds me of this episode of The West Wing:



You should also start reading/listening to Pope Francis. He has some interesting things to say with respect to what Catholics should be paying attention to.

[chang50]

As already mentioned, a Christian hate group is unable to exist. It's like a "Christian evolutionist", a term people liberally throw around that doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever. The two terms both conflict themselves, and in reality cannot exist.

You mean 'Christian evolutionists' like the Pope,and the Archbishop of Canterbury,or come to think of it the vast majority of self-identifying Christians?

"Vast majority" is a gross overstatement...
Secondly the scriptures clearly state that man was created by God, not that man has slowly evolved from bacteria and other species. It is fairly difficult, if not impossible, to claim to be a follower of Christ if you believe in evolution. Much like it is quite difficult to claim to be an atheist if you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord.

It's hard to find an exact % on this but the consensus is that 'most' Christians accept theistic evolution.Of course you might not agree with them but whichever way you look at it,that is a minority view.So the Popes beliefs here 'don't make any sense whatsoever,interesting when you consider the hundreds of millions of Christians he represents.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

As already mentioned, a Christian hate group is unable to exist. It's like a "Christian evolutionist", a term people liberally throw around that doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever. The two terms both conflict themselves, and in reality cannot exist.

You mean 'Christian evolutionists' like the Pope,and the Archbishop of Canterbury,or come to think of it the vast majority of self-identifying Christians?

"Vast majority" is a gross overstatement...
Secondly the scriptures clearly state that man was created by God, not that man has slowly evolved from bacteria and other species. It is fairly difficult, if not impossible, to claim to be a follower of Christ if you believe in evolution. Much like it is quite difficult to claim to be an atheist if you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord.

It's hard to find an exact % on this but the consensus is that 'most' Christians accept theistic evolution.Of course you might not agree with them but whichever way you look at it,that is a minority view.So the Popes beliefs here 'don't make any sense whatsoever,interesting when you consider the hundreds of millions of Christians he represents.

In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus says "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Christ himself says that only a "minority" (as you call it) will know the truth and follow it.
So just because a "majority" believe something, does not make it true, in fact, according to Christ (whom Christians are named after), it is quite the contrary.
Again, I would re-evaluate what constitutes a Christian if you really think someone who believes in evolution can be classified as a Christian. Jesus claimed to be God, who created humans from scratch, not evolved them from bacteria over billions of years.

Considering atheists are very much a minority you'll never hear me employing argumentum ad populum,I was just clarifying you hold a minority view within Christianity.

[jonesthecurl]

[quote="hahaha3hahaha]

So just because a "majority" believe something, does not make it true, in fact, according to Christ (whom Christians are named after), it is quite the contrary.
Again, I would re-evaluate what constitutes a Christian if you really think someone who believes in evolution can be classified as a Christian. Jesus claimed to be God, who created humans from scratch, not evolved them from bacteria over billions of years.[/quote]

So you have redefined "Christian" to mean (among other things) "does not believe in evolution".
Well then, yes, the majority of "Christians" do NOT believe in evolution.
Again, how many "Christians" are there then?
What is your own church?

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[BigBallinStalin]

As already mentioned, a Christian hate group is unable to exist. It's like a "Christian evolutionist", a term people liberally throw around that doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever. The two terms both conflict themselves, and in reality cannot exist.

You mean 'Christian evolutionists' like the Pope,and the Archbishop of Canterbury,or come to think of it the vast majority of self-identifying Christians?

"Vast majority" is a gross overstatement...
Secondly the scriptures clearly state that man was created by God, not that man has slowly evolved from bacteria and other species. It is fairly difficult, if not impossible, to claim to be a follower of Christ if you believe in evolution. Much like it is quite difficult to claim to be an atheist if you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord.

It's hard to find an exact % on this but the consensus is that 'most' Christians accept theistic evolution.Of course you might not agree with them but whichever way you look at it,that is a minority view.So the Popes beliefs here 'don't make any sense whatsoever,interesting when you consider the hundreds of millions of Christians he represents.

In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus says "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Christ himself says that only a "minority" (as you call it) will know the truth and follow it.
So just because a "majority" believe something, does not make it true, in fact, according to Christ (whom Christians are named after), it is quite the contrary.
Again, I would re-evaluate what constitutes a Christian if you really think someone who believes in evolution can be classified as a Christian. Jesus claimed to be God, who created humans from scratch, not evolved them from bacteria over billions of years.

There's more to truth than mere consensus.

Also, it's pretty simple to believe in the validity of evolution while remaining Christian. All you say is, "I accept the theory, but what's the ultimate cause? God is." Christianity: 1. hahaha sect: 0.

'God created humans from scratch'. "Scratch" equals the billions of elements and biological matter which coalesced over millennia. One of the outcomes was homo sapiens. Who created the humans? God did (ultimately). Christianity: 2. hahaha sect: 0.

inb4: "What about that Adam and Eve story?" Well, it's meant to be take figuratively--not literally. (And any part which is crucial for Christianity must be taken literally). This procedure should be followed arbitrarily in order to arrive at whatever one's desired conclusion may be. Christianity: 0. hahaha sect: 0. atheism/agnosticism: 1.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[jonesthecurl]

So just because a "majority" believe something, does not make it true, in fact, according to Christ (whom Christians are named after), it is quite the contrary.
Again, I would re-evaluate what constitutes a Christian if you really think someone who believes in evolution can be classified as a Christian. Jesus claimed to be God, who created humans from scratch, not evolved them from bacteria over billions of years.

So you have redefined "Christian" to mean (among other things) "does not believe in evolution".

I have not re-defined anything. To be a Christian you must accept the teachings of Christ, that is just common sense. Christ claimed to be God, who created humans in pure form, not in an evolutionary process backdating billions of years.
To believe in evolution is to deny the teachings of Christ, the two cannot coincide. It really isn't complicated.

OK. Again, how many "Christians" are there? What is your particular subset of the thing the rest of us call "Christianity"? How much does one have to disagree with you to be not "Christian"?
And do you go to hell if you believe in evolution?

[jonesthecurl]

Also, it's pretty simple to believe in the validity of evolution while remaining Christian. All you say is, "I accept the theory, but what's the ultimate cause? God is."

That would be declaring God a liar...God did not claim to create humans through an evolutionary process, starting from microbacteria, spanning billions of years. God claimed to have created humans, in their purest form, in a single day.

So do you think a god literally dictated the bible?

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

OK. Again, how many "Christians" are there?

What a silly question, how am I supposed to know how many Christians are on earth? (I thought atheists are meant to be the logical ones?)

How much does one have to disagree with you to be not "Christian"?

Has nothing to do with me. What you should be asking is how much does one have to disagree with the teachings of Christ to not be a "Christian"? (Which would actually be a very intelligent question)

Naturally we have to use your particular interpretation of said teachings to answer your question?Keep digging..

[jonesthecurl]

Well, let's step back a bit. You said that the idea that the "vast majority" of christians accept evolution was an overestimate. Then you excluded any such people from your definition of "Christian".
Here's a question: Millions of people who have studied the bible and call themselves Christians don't agree with your interpretation.
Who are you to say they're wrong? I ask as someone who has studied the bible and not ended as a Christian by anyone's definition.
What I'm asking is this: How much does one have to disagree with what you believe the Bible to say to be not a Christian?

[jonesthecurl]

Oh and again, what is your church? You should be happy to say - there might be eople out here who find you convincing and want to join.

[jonesthecurl]

PS if some posts come out a little odd, lease note that the "P" key sometimes sticks on this machine I'm using...

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, it's pretty simple to believe in the validity of evolution while remaining Christian. All you say is, "I accept the theory, but what's the ultimate cause? God is."

That would be declaring God a liar...God did not claim to create humans through an evolutionary process, starting from microbacteria, spanning billions of years. God claimed to have created humans, in their purest form, in a single day.

Recall:

"What about the Genesis story?" Well, it's meant to be taken figuratively--not literally. (And any part which is crucial for Christianity or hahaha's sect must be taken literally). This procedure will be followed arbitrarily in order to arrive at whatever one's desired conclusion may be. Christianity: 0. hahaha sect: 0. atheism/agnosticism: 1.

In order to avoid that problem, you must take everything in the Bible literally.

Did God state that everything in the Bible must be taken literally?


Also, according to the italicized, how old is the Earth?

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

"What about the Genesis story?" Well, it's meant to be taken figuratively--not literally.

What gives you that impression? I'm interested to here your theory on why creation is figurative and not literal.

PS if some posts come out a little odd, lease note that the "P" key sometimes sticks on this machine I'm using...

No worries, didn't even notice.

Naturally we have to use your particular interpretation of said teachings to answer your question?Keep digging..

Please give an example of where I have had a "particular interpretation". This is not a very good cop out to use, most of the Bible is pretty straight forward. When God commands us not to steal, it's not open to "interpretation". Please explain to me what you're referring to.

So it's only those 'Christians' who see things differently to you that interpret the Bible (wrongly) because you have been soo blessed to know exactly what it all means,literally and figuratively. I Guess all the legions of theologians who have dedicated their lives to the subject must have mostly been wrong not being lucky enough to be as insightful as you.