Do We Have a Christ Followers Thread?

[F250 29201]

34 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lol I've been citing scripture left and right and all I seem to get is form responses ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

But do you walk with Christ?

[safe sex 12017]

I see a distinction without a difference, as the whole thing is entirely subjective anyway.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

This place has become very reactionary over the last several years. An attempt at some esoteric humor will get you cut these days.

I blame the internet for the what's happened to bulletin boards.  They were better when they were physical boards with tacks.

 

35 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

And there's still plenty of "not so serious" discussion that takes places here. FFS, the only thread I've ever started on this forum is about cartoon characters I'd have sex with. I'm familiar with AoF/AoC/other handles from old sites. I've been lurking on iterations of Shaggy/Surly since my undergrad days at UT in the mid 2000s before I started posting in the last however many years. His schtick is tired and fucking offensive when applied to this context, as was his condescending/mansplain-y response to me. "Silly little girl couldn't possibly have understood my subtle and very intelligent philosophical humor that is only for OGs of a University of Texas football bulletin board forum. I better spell it out for her."

@Bama Chick said it best, but I'm mentally ill like most of you and had to say something.

If you have read these discussions over the years, then you should know that I absolutely do not believe that peoples beliefs and behaviors are "wired into their brains." It's my opponents in the debates who would take that position.  My posts were satirical polemic against that position.  If you did understand the background and the context, then why tell me that people's beliefs are not wired into their brains?  Makes no sense.  That's why I gave the clarification. 

It was very obvious to posters here that my posts are attempts to segue into dry philosophical debate.  It was clearly stated that was the case and laughed about.  My joking half-effort to restart a long running debate on theologically themed metaphysics in a thread for Christ followers was not aimed at you nor intended to offend.    

      

[Hook1997 5509]

Saw this post blowup for a while and never clicked on it until now and I wish I hadn’t now..   People wonder why so many wars have been fought over religion?  Read the last few pages of this thread….  Why can’t people just believe what they want without judgment of others who disagree with their beliefs?  This thread is a example of why.  

[TwiceHorn 32083]

4 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

I blame the internet for the what's happened to bulletin boards.  They were better when they were physical boards with tacks.

 

If you have read these discussions over the years, then you should know that I absolutely do not believe that peoples beliefs and behaviors are "wired into their brains." It's my opponents in the debates who would take that position.  My posts were satirical polemic against that position.  If you did understand the background and the context, then why tell me that people's beliefs are not wired into their brains?  Makes no sense.  That's why I gave the clarification. 

It was very obvious to posters here that my posts are attempts to segue into dry philosophical debate.  It was clearly stated that was the case and laughed about.  My joking half-effort to restart a long running debate on theologically themed metaphysics in a thread for Christ followers was not aimed at you nor intended to offend.    

      

What she takes from that is you saying that homosexuality is a choice.  Which is not what I think you're saying, but rather a more general statement that not all human behavior is hardwired.

That is why she finds it offensive, if I am not mistaken.

[formermav43 4630]

[Anastasis 23722]

13 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

He believes axioms are chosen.  

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

What she takes from that is you saying that homosexuality is a choice.  Which is not what I think you're saying, but rather a more general statement that not all human behavior is hardwired.

That is why she finds it offensive, if I am not mistaken.

The bold is correct.  I attempted to clarify and was told that was condescending.  Somehow she is offended due to a misunderstanding/miscommunication while simultaneously understanding my point so it’s condescending that I give clarification.   She’s offended by everything except contradictions. 

 

6 hours ago, Anastasis said:

 

At some point he is going to look up the axiom of choice, confusion will lead to cognitive dissonance, and onward he will forge ahead undeterred and undefeated in his own mind. 

[F250 29201]

So are we ready to discuss biblical literalism and the Epic of Gilgamesh?

 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

32 minutes ago, F250 said:

So are we ready to discuss biblical literalism and the Epic of Gilgamesh?

 

This is something i find fascinating and ultimately strange about Christians (maybe Jewish and Muslims also do this?), many will cherry pick scripture as literal to support a belief or maybe an argument.  But when you present scripture to them that is clearly misogynistic or racist...or down right weird as fuck, the excuses and rationalizations start flowing.

[Anastasis 23722]

4 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

At some point he is going to look up the axiom of choice, confusion will lead to cognitive dissonance, and onward he will forge ahead undeterred and undefeated in his own mind. 

It's a bit interesting watching the most belligerent posters as they self identify their sectarian backgrounds. I don't think that anybody should really be surprised that the vast majority are coming from really broken fundamentalist upbringings. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It's a bit interesting watching the most belligerent posters as they self identify their sectarian backgrounds. I don't think that anybody should really be surprised that the vast majority are coming from really broken fundamentalist upbringings. 

Yep. Most of their arguments are against sola scriptura, which they equate with Christianity.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26856]

Y’all motherfuckers need Jesus

[Brisketexan 106918]

Yep. Most of their arguments are against sola scriptura, which they equate with Christianity.  

Naaah. Their arguments are against “Christians.” It’s cool to debate the theological and academic, and esoteric nuances. That’s just what an ivory tower prof loves to do. With zero grasp or meaningful acknowledgment of the real-world version of the thing they’re talking about. The theological nuances and historical roots don’t much matter; the end result of self proclaimed “Christians” using their “faith” to inflict pain is what matters.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It’s cool to debate the theological and academic, and esoteric nuances. 

Agreed. 

[Brisketexan 106918]

Agreed. 

Even though your disdain = contempt for the multitude who have been and continue to be cruelly abused by “Christians.” That says quite a bit.
Ideas are shit.
People are real.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ideas are shit.
 

All of them?  
 

I do agree that people are real.  You got me on that one. 

[F250 29201]

Hates on U.S. Christianity. Marries PCUSA clergy.

 

[RollLeft 5092]

22 hours ago, F250 said:

So are we ready to discuss biblical literalism and the Epic of Gilgamesh?

 

Did you not get enough our freshman year of college?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13735]

On 10/9/2022 at 2:09 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

I work for a huge company where everyone lives in constant fear of a HR call.

No one should just survive at their job. It must be terribly stressful to have such little control in one’s life. Dying a low death.

[Anastasis 23722]

21 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Ideas are shit.

You know shit is fucked up when the lawyers are folding their cards blind. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

[Gatorubet 30724]

Spoiler

The Gnostics and Cathers seem like they were on to something when they held that the creator-god of the old testament (what they called the Demiurge) was not the same God as the new testament God of love.

It’s actually pretty difficult to argue that the old testament God was not a piece of crap.  I mean, drowning everyone in the world except a few people because they behaved in the way that He made them? Sending a bear to slaughter children because they mocked one of his peeps for being bald? A god who had to smell the burning flesh of animals as a sacrifice or he was going to be pissed and do bad things to them?  A god who flat demanded the genocidal slaughter of women and children of the native tribes before the land could belong to the people of Israel?  That God? 

Those of us who value so highly the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount do not think we are attacking Jesus when we call BS on the literal acceptance of the entirety of the Bible as fact and the only guide to secular life.  

 I can see where the reaction to the two different things (following Christ and biblical literalism) can get confusing to them, as they honestly can’t conceive of one existing without the other.    I have absolutely no issue with the first and a huge issue with the second. 

I do enjoy church and the constant reminders to do good to your fellow man and to quit being selfish.  Being around people who walk the walk in helping their fellow man is a blessing.  We need more of that in our world. 

[Gatorubet 30724]

20 hours ago, F250 said:

Hates on U.S. Christianity. Marries PCUSA clergy.

 

All that was predestined. 

[Brisketexan 106918]

45 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You know shit is fucked up when the lawyers are folding their cards blind. 

Could be.  Could also be that the law can suffer the same affliction: an esoteric focus on the academic, without considering the real-world human consequences.  I've actually talked with an appellate judge who was so proud of the appellate opinion he just wrote: how clever it was, how brilliantly written it was (both were true), yet he had no idea that it was a steaming piece of shit because it utterly failed to account for the real world, where it would be applied.

Theology is no different in that respect.

If all you care about is ideas, and fail to account for human beings, then yes, ideas are shit.

[Anastasis 23722]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Could be.  Could also be that the law can suffer the same affliction: an esoteric focus on the academic, without considering the real-world human consequences.  I've actually talked with an appellate judge who was so proud of the appellate opinion he just wrote: how clever it was, how brilliantly written it was (both were true), yet he had no idea that it was a steaming piece of shit because it utterly failed to account for the real world, where it would be applied.

Theology is no different in that respect.

If all you care about is ideas, and fail to account for human beings, then yes, ideas are shit.

 

[dcbc 14644]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Could be.  Could also be that the law can suffer the same affliction: an esoteric focus on the academic, without considering the real-world human consequences.  I've actually talked with an appellate judge who was so proud of the appellate opinion he just wrote: how clever it was, how brilliantly written it was (both were true), yet he had no idea that it was a steaming piece of shit because it utterly failed to account for the real world, where it would be applied.

Theology is no different in that respect.

If all you care about is ideas, and fail to account for human beings, then yes, ideas are shit.

 

[F250 29201]

I think the underlying theology has a huge impact on the believers. Fundamentalism just leads to rigid legalistic asshole behavior which was something Jesus constantly talked about. Letter of the law over spirit of the law.

Another one that really screws with society is all of the Evangelical dispensationalist variants floating around the place. When you are absolutely convinced that the world is about to end there is absolutely no reason to improve a world because you believe that the world must end. It's basically a dooms day cult.

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Could be.  Could also be that the law can suffer the same affliction: an esoteric focus on the academic, without considering the real-world human consequences.  I've actually talked with an appellate judge who was so proud of the appellate opinion he just wrote: how clever it was, how brilliantly written it was (both were true), yet he had no idea that it was a steaming piece of shit because it utterly failed to account for the real world, where it would be applied.

Theology is no different in that respect.

If all you care about is ideas, and fail to account for human beings, then yes, ideas are shit.

I don't know what you think is going on here, but I just want to argue minutia in between online chess games while I drink beer in the garage.  I'm not writing any appellate opinions.  None of us are doing anything remotely important on this message board dedicated to discussing which collection of 20 years olds is the best at smashing the shit out of each other.   

[SydneyCarton 49508]

On 10/15/2022 at 1:13 AM, Hook1997 said:

Saw this post blowup for a while and never clicked on it until now and I wish I hadn’t now..   People wonder why so many wars have been fought over religion?  Read the last few pages of this thread….  Why can’t people just believe what they want without judgment of others who disagree with their beliefs?  This thread is a example of why.  

That's a great question. It gets pretty difficult however when one small sect seeks to impress their own personal views of Christ/God/Dogma onto others with different beliefs. I'd argue it becomes inevitable. Check out the Iran thread for a quick example of this. In the US this is currently present in the form of laws that are being formed and implemented that impose these views on people who don't believe them. What do you do then?

Edited October 17, 2022 by SydneyCarton

[Captainant 28561]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

In the US this is currently present in the form of laws that are being formed and implemented that impose these views on people who don't believe them. What do you do then?

More than just "imposing views on people who don't believe them" - which can be #bothsides'd into "well we're the real victim because our kids have to be aware of gay people!"

It's imposing exclusively religious ideals and morality against a society (ie: homosexuality is a choice and a sin) through the state and the legal system. THAT is the problem I have with the modern church and """christians""" today

[SHOOTER12 8886]

On 10/6/2022 at 12:19 PM, hayden_horn said:

sure about this response?

in the christ followers thread?

empathy. sympathy. these are the paths you are looking for. 

right?

right?

"Love thy neighbor as thyself "

Regardless of differences between denominations,  Regardless of what we perceive as sin, Regardless of those who hold different beliefs and ideologies.  If we can achieve this, all turmoil will end.  Judge not,  lest ye be judged,  He who is without sin, cast the first stone....

For Gods sake love one another without reservation. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by SHOOTER12

[tbone_ 14451]

[Willfully Horn 8266]

 

[Guest]

On 10/17/2022 at 12:10 PM, Captainant said:

More than just "imposing views on people who don't believe them" - which can be #bothsides'd into "well we're the real victim because our kids have to be aware of gay people!"

It's imposing exclusively religious ideals and morality against a society (ie: homosexuality is a choice and a sin) through the state and the legal system. THAT is the problem I have with the modern church and """christians""" today

I’m a UMC member. That is simply not espoused by church leadership and it wasn’t as I was growing up as a Disciples of Christ / Presby lad. I don’t know where it’s taught. Now, I know the “church” is more than its leadership.  But I know congregations of all these churches - homosexuality is never discussed, except that it is noted when gays are accepted into the church, etc.  The trans agenda infiltrating schools / amateur sports is certainly discussed amongst this group but always outside of church. While I haven’t read this whole thread, most Christians I hang around, and I certainly include myself in this category, adhere to the “we got enough of our own problems to focus on anyone else” line of thinking that I think Christ would want us to. 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

That goddamn trans agenda.

[F250 29201]

1 hour ago, Porterhouse said:

I’m a UMC member. That is simply not espoused by church leadership and it wasn’t as I was growing up as a Disciples of Christ / Presby lad. I don’t know where it’s taught. Now, I know the “church” is more than its leadership.  But I know congregations of all these churches - homosexuality is never discussed, except that it is noted when gays are accepted into the church, etc.  The trans agenda infiltrating schools / amateur sports is certainly discussed amongst this group but always outside of church. While I haven’t read this whole thread, most Christians I hang around, and I certainly include myself in this category, adhere to the “we got enough of our own problems to focus on anyone else” line of thinking that I think Christ would want us to. 

The UMC doesn't really get involved in the culture wars.

[F250 29201]

2 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

 

His mother was a nun and father was a Franciscan Brother?

[PRONG HORN 3218]

2 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

That goddamn trans agenda.

[Willfully Horn 8266]

42 minutes ago, F250 said:

His mother was a nun and father was a Franciscan Brother?

Provocative intro, for sure. 
 

“For a lot of … America, the Bible consists of the Book of Leviticus and the Book of Revelation, duct taped to the “Left Behind” series.”

Spot on. 
 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Willfully Horn
Edit

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

That goddamn trans agenda.

Church leadership never mentions a word about it. Mainly jokes about this:

28 minutes ago, PRONG HORN said:

 

1 hour ago, F250 said:

The UMC doesn't really get involved in the culture wars.

This has been my extensive experience, I’m grateful for it, and, we are very prayerful for our leadership regardless of who is in office. 

24 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Provocative intro, for sure. 
 

“For a lot of … America, the Bible consists of the Book of Leviticus and the Book of Revelation, duct taped to the “Left Behind” series.”

Spot on. 
 

Yep. 

[Guest]

On 10/15/2022 at 7:51 PM, F250 said:

So are we ready to discuss biblical literalism and the Epic of Gilgamesh?

 

I read the epic of Gilgamesh recently.  Not as good as Greek myths; a lot of repetition, main characters spend a lot of time crying.  But there are some interesting parts, and considering how old it is and how much if seemed to influence later stories it is worth the short time it takes to read it.  I wonder how the audience in the time it was written and told understood the stories - did they view them as metaphor and hyperbole, or did they believe they happened as described?  For example, did they think that Gilgamesh was really two thirds god, or did they understand that to mean he was just a really impressive man?  I tend to think the latter.       

[HouTex 1943]

For followers of Christ this is always a must watch this time of year.  Merry Christmas Charlie Brown!!

[Degenerate Gardner 4159]

Nominally, yes. 

 

[YGIFS 19458]

its Christmas time.  But it’s just so hard to walk with Jesus with the whole war on Christmas and grooming.   Imma go back to supporting hatred and fear mongering.  You cunts. 

[Guest]

I've been attending an orthodox church over the last few months, @Anastasis.  I've visited many churches over the years and the orthodox seem the most dedicated to the core tenets. And they don't endorse ridiculous things like Calvinism or process theology, so that is a big plus.  Stylistically, orthodox is much different than I am used to.  Biggest adjustment though is the veneration of the icons.  Coming from a sparse protestant upbringing that takes some getting used to.     

[HamsterHookah 112]

1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

I've been attending an orthodox church over the last few months, @Anastasis.  I've visited many churches over the years and the orthodox seem the most dedicated to the core tenets. And they don't endorse ridiculous things like Calvinism or process theology, so that is a big plus.  Stylistically, orthodox is much different than I am used to.  Biggest adjustment though is the veneration of the icons.  Coming from a sparse protestant upbringing that takes some getting used to.     

Where is the line between veneration of icons and idolatry? That's always been a curious topic for me-- even as Christians and the sliding scale of "worshiping icons"/"creating idols" out of icons in deep Christian canon (e.g. The Cross, Cross jewelry, the 19 crosses hung up all over the average southern house, etc.)

[Guest]

On 12/22/2022 at 4:02 PM, HamsterHookah said:

Where is the line between veneration of icons and idolatry? That's always been a curious topic for me-- even as Christians and the sliding scale of "worshiping icons"/"creating idols" out of icons in deep Christian canon (e.g. The Cross, Cross jewelry, the 19 crosses hung up all over the average southern house, etc.)

For centuries there has been both the use of icons and the resistance to icons.  The 2nd council of Nicaea in the 8th century decided against the iconoclasts and that “it is proper to accord to [icons] a fervent and reverent veneration, not, however, the veritable adoration which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone – for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever venerate the image venerate in it the reality of what is there represented.”

So the line here that is drawn is between veneration, which is acceptable and proper, and adoration, which is for God alone.  I understand the argument, but in practice it is not familiar for me. 

 

[Guest]

I was reading about dreams recently and came across an overview of La Clef des Songes (French for "The Key to Dreams) by Alexander Grothendieck, who is considered by many to be one of the most important mathematicians of the 20th century.  Grothendieck describes his parents as convinced nonbelievers and atheists, and says he was raised in a nonreligious environment.  He also endured great hardship during WWII, with him and his mother being interned in various camps in the early 40's, where his mother contracted the tuberculosis that eventually caused her death.  His father was sent to be murdered at Auschwitz in 1942. 

Despite his background, Grothendieck had a religious conversion and came to believe in God after analyzing some profound dreams he had.  Grothendieck believed that dreams are sent by a power outside of humankind, by "the Dreamer."   He also believed that some dreams contain particularly important messages.  After analyzing the nature of the Dreamer he came to the conclusion that God exists and that God is the Dreamer.  Furthermore, he believes God send dreams to humans so that they may understand themselves and find the way to true life:

I was about to explain the meaning of the “main idea” [pensée maîtresse]: “God is the Dreamer,” to a reader who has not had any direct experience with God, one for whom “God” is perhaps nothing but a word, empty of meaning, or even a “superstition” from a “pre-logical” epoch, which has long since come to an end (thank God!) ever since the
triumphant upsurge of rational thought and Science. I have friends of long date who plug their ears with sorrowful faces when they hear words like “God”, “soul”, or even “spirit”.  I do not know if they will read my testimony, but I am also writing for them, in the hope,who knows?  - From La Clef des Songes

Grothendieck did not seem to think that one could prove the existence of God purely by logic (e.g., cosmological or ontological arguments), but that one could only arrive at the certainty of this knowledge through their experiences - dreams, in his case.  However, though he did believe that God created all things in the universe and also the laws which regulate the universe, he did believe that mathematics is in a different uncreated category (my views align with his here):  

One must however make an exception here for the laws of mathematics. These laws can be discovered by man, but they are created neither by man nor even by God. The fact that two plus two equals four is not a decree of God, in the sense that He would be free to change this into two plus two equals three or five. I feel the mathematical laws as being part of the nature of God himself - a minuscule part, certainly, in some ways the most superficial, but the only one which is accessible to reason alone. This is why it is possible to be a great mathematician while being in a state of extreme spiritual decay.  - From La Clef des Songes

This view is certainly not new, and various aspects of it were common and arguably even the default view in ancient times.  But it is interesting that one with the background of Grothendieck would arrive at it later in life.  For me, my dreams are mostly nonsense and chaos, and I have difficulty ever deriving any meaning from them.  But maybe I am just not paying enough attention to them.  

So what do the Christ followers of surly horns believe regarding dreams?  Are they simply the result of neurons firing when we sleep, or is there sometimes a supernatural element to them?  Do you pay any attention to your dreams or assign any significance to them? 

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by axiom of foundation

[Anastasis 23722]

On 12/22/2022 at 1:59 PM, axiom of foundation said:

I've been attending an orthodox church over the last few months, @Anastasis.  I've visited many churches over the years and the orthodox seem the most dedicated to the core tenets. And they don't endorse ridiculous things like Calvinism or process theology, so that is a big plus.  Stylistically, orthodox is much different than I am used to.  Biggest adjustment though is the veneration of the icons.  Coming from a sparse protestant upbringing that takes some getting used to.     

We have our own unique ridiculousness.