View Single Post
Unread 05-06-2010, 01:15 PM   #750 (permalink)
BigDongedHoe
Sex Kitten Milf fuuucck
 
BigDongedHoe's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,704
Internets: 55974
BigDongedHoe has a reputation beyond repute BigDongedHoe has a reputation beyond repute BigDongedHoe has a reputation beyond repute BigDongedHoe has a reputation beyond repute BigDongedHoe has a reputation beyond repute BigDongedHoe has a reputation beyond repute BigDongedHoe has a reputation beyond repute BigDongedHoe has a reputation beyond repute BigDongedHoe has a reputation beyond repute BigDongedHoe has a reputation beyond repute BigDongedHoe has a reputation beyond repute

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination View Post
What's sadder about missionaries - that their help to poor people comes with strings attached, or that they need to serve a higher power in order to help in the first place?

Evangelicalism and populism sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g. Look how they hold each other, how they look longingly into each others eyes - a match made in heaven! And unlike naughty catholic school girls, they won't fuck until after they're married.

They're both just fancy words which pretty much mean the same thing: simplification. Or, if we want to use a nastier word(s), dumb down. A brief breakdown for those who aren't familiar:

Evangelicalism - what you need to believe: The need to be "born again", Biblical authority, belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the need to do good works based on the gospel. That's it. If the Catholics are the scholars (and molesters) of the religious world then think of the evangelicals as the hillbillies. They've whittled down the complexities of religious argument to four basic tenants that even the most bumbling of their flock can follow. Their favorite rallying cry is "It's not religion, it's a relationship!" this doesn't just reveal that they want to be dissociated with the negative connotations of religion, but reinforces the simplification of. Why study ancient texts when I can have THE ONE TRUE GOD over for a slumber party every night?

Populism: Political-social ideology that places "the people" against the "elite" - it's characterized by a mistrust of excellence, essentially - we're not just talking about slimy politicians here, we're talking about achievers. We're talking about PhD's, social theorists, scientists, anyone who confuses them and messes with their world view, basically. They're "the folks" the honest to goodness down to earth people who the rich, intellectual tricksters take advantage of to get ahead. Populism appeals to the ethos (character) of a person. It's about simplicity, about making everything black and white. Guys like Foucault and Berger make them shake their heads in dismay. Classic victim complex.

Let's examine the population these two seductresses serve: White, middle class mid-westerners. Hey, who do we know who fits that description? Even before BDH felt the hand of God tugging his heartstrings he was in the perfect environment for this to happen.

Anyone with half a brain can see serious problems with how the Bible was put together without even delving into what it actually says. First, there's the translation issue. Let's just say when the King James version of the Bible was slapped together they weren't exactly being careful or impartial:

"James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy."

Source: Daniell, David (2003), The Bible in English: its history and influence, New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, ISBN 0300099304

Second, the books that were chosen versus the books that were excluded. The big secret is this - when they were consolidating Christianity into what it is as we know it, they contrived to select books that conformed to the version they wanted to push. Many of the books that are excluded from the Bible were left out because they contradicted the official version of Jesus the church wanted to push. Period. They needed to make sure there wasn't any doubt that Jesus was in fact the son of God. Anyone can argue WHY they did this, but the point is that they did it. What makes one book more divine than the other? The only thing believers can say is that those who chose the books were divinely inspired.

This discussion is pointless because the crux of BDH's belief comes from personal experience. He can throw whatever books he wants at Blonde, but as long as Blonde doesn't make exceptions for the Bible that he otherwise wouldn't for other epistemological ponderings then this won't go anywhere.

BDH, I don't doubt you feel what you feel, but that's just not enough. In my opinion you feel what you feel because you want to feel it - most people want to believe in God, very few people don't want to believe in God. Because of this people who don't believe in God are almost by definition more objective.

I realize I've come off as a condescending ass, but you of all people should be able to forgive me.
I feel like you guys try and find whatever loophole you can and then dig a wedge in it. In the same way you sit here and say Christians translated the texts to fit their agenda I could just as easily say those who speak against Christianity will twist things to fit their agenda as well.

There are how many translations of the bible? Off the top of my head I believe there are over 100. Everyone has a slightly different way of saying one particular piece of scripture. They all however have the same type of meaning with that scripture. BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. type in a piece of scripture and read it in 10 or so different translations. Tell me how "different" each one really is. You're arguing semantics right now and really missing the whole point. I'm not douting that .1% of the bible may be inaccurate but the 99.9% that is accurate is enough for me.

I believe the bible to be truth and you don't. I don't need to argue with you guys on why I believe what I believe. However for someone to say what I believe is based off of "irrational emotion" isn't true at all. My initial life change to Christ was emotional and continues to be. I have however studied the subject really hard to solidify what I believe is truth. As I dig further and further it only confirms my faith (see definition of faith, following Christ is a very emotional thing) even more. In the end one of us is right and one of us is wrong and we both ultimately know the implications of what will happen when one or the other happens. If you're right and you live life how you see it fit and on the day you die thats it life is over. If I'm right I live my life in servitude to my Lord in trying to continue to live my life as Christ did and spend joy beyond what anyone can ever fathom eternally in Heaven.

There's life and then there is Cubs baseball, it's a chore to seperate the two.

Last edited by BigDongedHoe; 05-06-2010 at 01:17 PM.
BigDongedHoe is offline   Reply With Quote