Apologies to the Christians that aren't Morons...But a Lot of You Are Morons

[TheMathematician]

the title is simply the title of the blog post

i came across this, the poster being a good dear friend of mine, and was taken back on how to respond and react to it, and as such decided to put it up here for reflection/debate

Really this isn't about any one thing in particular, rather about how Christians tend to cherry pick the bible based on their own biases and prejudices.  For lack of a better way of putting it, the Bible is a big old book with a lot of stuff in it that is stupid, outdated, makes no sense, or some wonderful combination of the three.  And Christians are okay with only following bits and pieces selected by a complex process of ?

It gets even better when they extend this logic onto things on which the Bible has nothing to say.  One of those is the issue of pornography.  Hardcore religious groups hate porn something fierce, and they'll speak out against it constantly, usually when children are involved.  (PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!)  The most recent of this abomination is the NYFRF posting an article about the ACLU.

http://criminallyvu1gar.blogspot.com/2011/09/apologies-to-christians-that-arent.html

possibility of language, and objectionable material, especially if you veer off the linked blog post

(mods feel free to move this to the approiate forum, this just seemed best)

[akimori makoto]

Your friend has no clue about Christian theology, the place of the Most Holy Scriptures or the source of authority in the Church of Christ.

However, I can barely blame him, Christianity in the Anglosphere being what it is these days -- what, with the Qur'anification of the Holy Scriptures and the fetishising of certain moral pet peeves at the expense of the balance of the Gospel, if not the Gospel itself.

I think avoiding things of an "explicit" nature whatever the cost falls into the category of the fetishising I refer to above.

[Asteriktos]

Your friend has no clue about Christian theology, the place of the Most Holy Scriptures or the source of authority in the Church of Christ.

However, I can barely blame him, Christianity in the Anglosphere being what it is these days -- what, with the Qur'anification of the Holy Scriptures and the fetishising of certain moral pet peeves at the expense of the balance of the Gospel, if not the Gospel itself.

I think avoiding things of an "explicit" nature whatever the cost falls into the category of the fetishising I refer to above.

His response:

[ialmisry]

the title is simply the title of the blog post

i came across this, the poster being a good dear friend of mine, and was taken back on how to respond and react to it, and as such decided to put it up here for reflection/debate

Really this isn't about any one thing in particular, rather about how Christians tend to cherry pick the bible based on their own biases and prejudices.  For lack of a better way of putting it, the Bible is a big old book with a lot of stuff in it that is stupid, outdated, makes no sense, or some wonderful combination of the three.  And Christians are okay with only following bits and pieces selected by a complex process of ?

It gets even better when they extend this logic onto things on which the Bible has nothing to say.  One of those is the issue of pornography.  Hardcore religious groups hate porn something fierce, and they'll speak out against it constantly, usually when children are involved.  (PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!)  The most recent of this abomination is the NYFRF posting an article about the ACLU.

http://criminallyvu1gar.blogspot.com/2011/09/apologies-to-christians-that-arent.html

possibility of language, and objectionable material, especially if you veer off the linked blog post

(mods feel free to move this to the approiate forum, this just seemed best)

It would seem your friend hasn't a clue as to what is in the Bible (the clue is that it "has nothing to say" on pornography: he obviously hasn't read the Book, or either he is cherry picking around those passages relevant to that issue), but is merely regurgitating what he has been fed by those who are doped up on atheism, the opitate of the dissolute.

No "?" about it: the Church has been interpreting the Bible for thousands of years. But of course, such types don't like authority, besides their own that is.

[ialmisry]

Your friend has no clue about Christian theology, the place of the Most Holy Scriptures or the source of authority in the Church of Christ.

However, I can barely blame him, Christianity in the Anglosphere being what it is these days -- what, with the Qur'anification of the Holy Scriptures and the fetishising of certain moral pet peeves at the expense of the balance of the Gospel, if not the Gospel itself.

I think avoiding things of an "explicit" nature whatever the cost falls into the category of the fetishising I refer to above.

His response:

He's right, but that doesn't mean we didn't hear him.  We heard, and are giving his ramblings the respect due them. Listening to him is beyond that.

[Achronos]

No "?" about it: the Church has been interpreting the Bible for thousands of years. But of course, such types don't like authority, besides their own that is.

Trying to convey this to my protestant dad has been such a struggle for me, because he relies on the Bible's authority and not on some church.

I really need some help with this.

[Asteriktos]

I think a lot of it is there, though some things are difficult to demonstrate using only Scripture, such as praying to saints or apostolic succession. I can't speak for others, but for me it's more helpful to start from the position of: did Christ found a Church and were the apostles part of a visible Church structure? If so, and Christ's prophecy in Matt. 16 is true, then which group can be seen down through the centuries as being that Church? After that you can take things on a case by case basis, always asking "If there isn't enough evidence to point strongly either way, are you willing to trust that God was guiding the Church and didn't abandon it?" That's what I try to tell myself, anyway.

[Achronos]

I think a lot of it is there, though some things are difficult to demonstrate using only Scripture, such as praying to saints or apostolic succession. I can't speak for others, but for me it's more helpful to start from the position of: did Christ found a Church and were the apostles part of a visible Church structure? If so, and Christ's prophecy in Matt. 16 is true, then which group can be seen down through the centuries as being that Church? After that you can take things on a case by case basis, always asking "If there isn't enough evidence to point strongly either way, are you willing to trust that God was guiding the Church and didn't abandon it?" That's what I try to tell myself, anyway.

That seems to me very presentable. I've been really good not to get polemical with the family about my inquiry into Orthodoxy because I just don't know enough.

[ialmisry]

I think a lot of it is there, though some things are difficult to demonstrate using only Scripture, such as praying to saints or apostolic succession. I can't speak for others, but for me it's more helpful to start from the position of: did Christ found a Church and were the apostles part of a visible Church structure? If so, and Christ's prophecy in Matt. 16 is true, then which group can be seen down through the centuries as being that Church? After that you can take things on a case by case basis, always asking "If there isn't enough evidence to point strongly either way, are you willing to trust that God was guiding the Church and didn't abandon it?" That's what I try to tell myself, anyway.

I add that He said on His ascendsion "I am with you all the days, even until the end of the age."  So, which Church has been with Him all the days (i.e. has continually existed) since then?

btw, both prayers to saints and apostolic succession can be shown clearly from using only Scripture.  But it helps to have the context of what the Bible is talking about, i.e. the Church.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

No "?" about it: the Church has been interpreting the Bible for thousands of years. But of course, such types don't like authority, besides their own that is.

Trying to convey this to my protestant dad has been such a struggle for me, because he relies on the Bible's authority and not on some church.

I really need some help with this.

For this, prayer is the only answer.  If simple logic doesn't convince folks that the source of the authority of the Scriptures is in the Church which authored, copied, and transmits these Scriptures over the past thousands of years, then it truly takes only a miracle of God

Even if you were to draw out the long, intricate, and complicated history of Biblical scholarship in the Church, traced the evolution of the Canon and the various translations, incorporated the influence of the Patristic commentaries, and included the archeological, historical, and cultural evidence of the Church being the perpetual source of the Bible, I'm sure your father and many others would hardly be convinced.  They would essentially cry conspiracy and instead draw back upon their previous inclinations, because their ideas are not based on any kind of fact or reality in the first place, and being contrary to reason they should be considered obviously unreasonable.  As such, you should not worry yourself with unreasonable people aside from a prayerful effort for God to convince the hearts of some to see the Truth in His time.  After all, if folks do acknowledge the Scriptures, then they are at the least half way there already

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[yeshuaisiam]

Yeah he's not really thinking on some levels, and on others he is.

Yes Christians do often "cherry pick" stuff to complete biases & agendas.   I can't deny that.   But that doesn't mean that the original intent of the scriptures were to be used for that.  This is a bias on an individual basis.

However, what he states on pornography is dangerous.  Many people's minds are twisted, turned, in "drug" like states when using pornography.  It is a very dangerous thing that skews men (and women's) minds about marriage, courtship, and love.

[Asteriktos]

btw, both prayers to saints and apostolic succession can be shown clearly from using only Scripture.

Not really. 

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Apologies to the Christians that aren't Morons...But a Lot of You Are Morons