Evangelical Christians

[safe sex 12,010]

There's that religious condescension I've been waiting for. That's gonna be the ticket that gets me to open my eyes. 

[Brisketexan 106,900]

48 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Lol, this aphe guy is murdering you guys. Brisket especially should be grateful this guy wasn't opposing counsel in real life. Flimsy flimsy flimsy that ends with "okay, well, imma still rest on my anecdotal experiences of waiting tables as a teenager and getting that hypocritical church crowd a few times yall"

Moving on, my personal belief is that faith-- the true, enlightening conviction that is tethered to your double-helix strands-- is something that cannot be intellectualized. You can't study hard or want it more or check all the right boxes, send enough electricity to your brain, or ingest enough LSD (though I do think that's probably the closest you can get without having the real thing) to arrive at a point of faith. it's just a crazy, supernatural gift bestowed that completely out of your control. I think that is why we are not to boast about our faith or hold ourselves as the betters of those who don't have eyes to see, yet. In fact, it's not a source of pride, but for me, it's a source of pain and sorrow sometimes because I wish I could help others--people I love-- to "get it". That is me being stupid and a sinner because I'm a human. I've known people who have immense guilt, in the "why me? i don't deserve, i'm a shitty person compared to xyz" vein. 

Regardless, and to the point of this thread, because of this fundamental and dynamic difference, I've found that the best way to speak to those who can't hear or see is to just be loving, patient and kind. They literally can't hear what you are saying because they can't see through the fog. It's a literal curse in the sense that their curse is they can only see and be literal. When talking about things like infinity/the infinite and omnipotent and a modality of behaviors/movements/feelings/ideas that break from our organic-based rules and life-code base, the literal can only live to survive and grasp for what comfort they can. 

That said, nobody here can save anyone- least of all me. I'm just a begger trying to explain to other beggers where to find some bread.

Meh, that was just the anecdote I've given before, went back to it for ease.

Would it surprise you to know that I've also litigated high-stakes ecclesiastical disputes?  And that in EVERY case, there are clear acts of fraud (lying to the voting members of a congregation, lying about what documents say/do, etc.).  And in EVERY case....the "side" doing the flat-out lying is the fundamentalist side?

You reference humility -- a point I strongly agree with.  As I've said before, I'm not a Christian, but I'm trying to be.  I fail every damned day.  These folks are not humble.  Instead, they are so convinced of the superiority of their belief system that they'll do whatever it takes to impose it on others, including lie.

You reference truth -- it is indeed a fundamental underpinning of both faith and civil society.  But the fundagelicals are utterly divorced from both objective truth, and simple honesty.

You would be mistaken if you took ANY of my takes for being disdainful of Christianity; I am steeped in the faith, was educated in the faith, and regularly occupy positions of ecclesiastical leadership.  My disdain is for those who use the label as a shield and excuse for horrific acts and beliefs, who preach truth yet indulge in and use lies, who speak of humility yet abuse power, etc.

Christianity need not be at odds with science or a functioning civil society.  Putting it at odds with those does a disservice to both the faith and society.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Meh, that was just the anecdote I've given before, went back to it for ease.

Would it surprise you to know that I've also litigated high-stakes ecclesiastical disputes?  And that in EVERY case, there are clear acts of fraud (lying to the voting members of a congregation, lying about what documents say/do, etc.).  And in EVERY case....the "side" doing the flat-out lying is the fundamentalist side?

You reference humility -- a point I strongly agree with.  As I've said before, I'm not a Christian, but I'm trying to be.  I fail every damned day.  These folks are not humble.  Instead, they are so convinced of the superiority of their belief system that they'll do whatever it takes to impose it on others, including lie.

You reference truth -- it is indeed a fundamental underpinning of both faith and civil society.  But the fundagelicals are utterly divorced from both objective truth, and simple honesty.

You would be mistaken if you took ANY of my takes for being disdainful of Christianity; I am steeped in the faith, was educated in the faith, and regularly occupy positions of ecclesiastical leadership.  My disdain is for those who use the label as a shield and excuse for horrific acts and beliefs, who preach truth yet indulge in and use lies, who speak of humility yet abuse power, etc.

Christianity need not be at odds with science or a functioning civil society.  Putting it at odds with those does a disservice to both the faith and society.

See, I think we just have completely different beliefs though it looks like the same language. You are either Christian or you aren't. There is no trying to be. You can be a piss poor Christian (as I think most of us would cop to, myself the biggest sinner of them all probably. I don't think I'm telling tales out of school when I say that Rex and Johnny if their posting personas/words are to be taken at face-value and accurate representation of their hearts, while they are Christians and saved, have a long way to go and a lot to learn about what they are called to be to others). 

Just because some of a group of people (evangelists) lie and steal and impose beliefs and lack humility in the name of God because it is easy, whether they are being disingenuous or not, means nothing to me as it pertains to treating all people, including all evangelists, I meet with respect and love and the benefit of the doubt that they are trying their best to love you and be patient and respectful to you as well. In theory, at least. It's like the situation with refugees, to make an analogy that hits close to home with you. Just because some shit bag terrorists can lie and pretend to be refugees to egress and ingress places for nefarious reasons because it's easy doesn't mean that you treat all refugees with suspicious and disrespect and value them lesser in your heart and mind (murder them with your heart, as we say).

Lastly, there are a LOT of things about our current culture that Christianity necessarily need be at odds with, I believe. Science and Civility are not those things, we agree.

[David Dennison 19,542]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

See, I think we just have completely different beliefs though it looks like the same language. You are either Christian or you aren't. There is no trying to be. You can be a piss poor Christian (as I think most of us would cop to, myself the biggest sinner of them all probably. I don't think I'm telling tales out of school when I say that Rex and Johnny if their posting personas/words are to be taken at face-value and accurate representation of their hearts, while they are Christians and saved, have a long way to go and a lot to learn about what they are called to be to others). 

Just because some of a group of people (evangelists) lie and steal and impose beliefs and lack humility in the name of God because it is easy, whether they are being disingenuous or not, means nothing to me as it pertains to treating all people, including all evangelists, I meet with respect and love and the benefit of the doubt that they are trying their best to love you and be patient and respectful to you as well. In theory, at least. It's like the situation with refugees, to make an analogy that hits close to home with you. Just because some shit bag terrorists can lie and pretend to be refugees to egress and ingress places for nefarious reasons because it's easy doesn't mean that you treat all refugees with suspicious and disrespect and value them lesser in your heart and mind (murder them with your heart, as we say).

Lastly, there are a LOT of things about our current culture that Christianity necessarily need be at odds with, I believe. Science and Civility are not those things, we agree.

If they aren't Catholic, they aren't saved.

Just sayin'.

[F250 29,201]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm not a Christian, but I'm trying to be. 

I'm going to steal this one for later use.

[F250 29,201]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If they aren't Orthodox, they aren't saved.

Just sayin'.

Fify

[Sawbonz 28,223]

55 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

There's that religious condescension I've been waiting for. That's gonna be the ticket that gets me to open my eyes. 

 

[Brisketexan 106,900]

4 minutes ago, F250 said:

I'm going to steal this one for later use.

Well, Oatmeal seems to think I'm wrong for saying it.  Entirely missing the point that it's a turn of phrase meant to capture the fact that I'm fallen, and continuously falling.

See, a Christian is a Christ-follower.  But I regularly wander off the path, so I'm not following Christ. And if I'm not following Christ in a given moment, then I'm not a Christ-follower, which means....I'm not a Christian.  But I'm trying to be.  I try to get back on that path, over and over again.  Some days, I have more success than others.

Oh, and Bozo Casanova actually used that phrase first.  I happily stole it from him.

[F250 29,201]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, Oatmeal seems to think I'm wrong for saying it.  Entirely missing the point that it's a turn of phrase meant to capture the fact that I'm fallen, and continuously falling.

See, a Christian is a Christ-follower.  But I regularly wander off the path, so I'm not following Christ. And if I'm not following Christ in a given moment, then I'm not a Christ-follower, which means....I'm not a Christian.  But I'm trying to be.  I try to get back on that path, over and over again.  Some days, I have more success than others.

Oh, and Bozo Casanova actually used that phrase first.  I happily stole it from him.

That is what I thought it meant and why I like the phrase.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

[Bozo_Casanova 26,851]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

That is what I thought it meant and why I like the phrase.

More on this topic, from Søren Kierkegaard

 

Quote

It is well known that Christ consistently used the expression “follower.” He never asks for admirers, worshippers, or adherents. No, he calls disciples. It is not adherents of a teaching but followers of a life Christ is looking for.

Christ understood that being a “disciple” was in innermost and deepest harmony with what he said about himself. Christ claimed to be the way and the truth and the life (Jn. 14:6). For this reason, he could never be satisfied with adherents who accepted his teaching – especially with those who in their lives ignored it or let things take their usual course. His whole life on earth, from beginning to end, was destined solely to have followers and to make admirers impossible.

Christ came into the world with the purpose of saving, not instructing it. At the same time – as is implied in his saving work – he came to be the pattern, to leave footprints for the person who would join him, who would become a follower. This is why Christ was born and lived and died in lowliness. It is absolutely impossible for anyone to sneak away from the Pattern with excuse and evasion on the basis that It, after all, possessed earthly and worldly advantages that he did not have. In that sense, to admire Christ is the false invention of a later age, aided by the presumption of “loftiness.” No, there is absolutely nothing to admire in Jesus, unless you want to admire poverty, misery, and contempt.

What then, is the difference between an admirer and a follower? A follower is or strives to be what he admires. An admirer, however, keeps himself personally detached. He fails to see that what is admired involves a claim upon him, and thus he fails to be or strive to be what he admires.

If you have any knowledge at all of human nature, who can doubt that Judas was an admirer of Christ! And we know that Christ at the beginning of his work had many admirers. Judas was precisely such an admirer and thus later became a traitor. It is not hard to imagine that those who only admire the truth will, when danger appears, become traitors. The admirer is infatuated with the false security of greatness; but if there is any inconvenience or trouble, he pulls back. Admiring the truth, instead of following it, is just as dubious a fire as the fire of erotic love, which at the turn of the hand can be changed into exactly the opposite, to hate, jealousy, and revenge.

There is a story of yet another admirer – Nicodemus. Despite the risk to his reputation, despite the effort on his part, Nicodemus was only an admirer; he never became a follower. It is as if he might have said to Christ, “If we are able to reach a compromise, you and I, then I will accept your teaching in eternity. But here in this world, no, I cannot. Could you not make an exception for me? Could it not be enough if once in a while, at great risk to myself, I come to you during the night, but during the day (yes, I confess it, I feel how humiliating this is for me and how disgraceful, indeed also how very insulting it is toward you) I say ‘I do not know you’?” See in what a web of untruth an admirer can entangle himself!

The admirer never makes any true sacrifices. He always plays it safe. Though in words, phrases, songs, he is inexhaustible about how highly he prizes Christ, he renounces nothing, will not reconstruct his life, and will not let his life express what it is he supposedly admires. Not so for the follower. No, no. The follower aspires with all his strength to be what he admires. And then, remarkably enough, even though he is living amongst a “Christian people,” he incurs the same peril as he did when it was dangerous to openly confess Christ. And because of the follower’s life, it will become evident who the admirers are, for the admirers will become agitated with him. Even these words will disturb many – but then they must likewise belong to the admirers.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, Oatmeal seems to think I'm wrong for saying it.  Entirely missing the point that it's a turn of phrase meant to capture the fact that I'm fallen, and continuously falling.

See, a Christian is a Christ-follower.  But I regularly wander off the path, so I'm not following Christ. And if I'm not following Christ in a given moment, then I'm not a Christ-follower, which means....I'm not a Christian.  But I'm trying to be.  I try to get back on that path, over and over again.  Some days, I have more success than others.

Oh, and Bozo Casanova actually used that phrase first.  I happily stole it from him.

The hell, man?  Sometimes you get too cute for your own good. Oatmeal is exactly right. You can strive to be more Christlike but if the belief in a Christ and his teachings is there, then you’re a Christian, regardless of how organized religion and the Republican Party are contributing to your midlife crisis. No caveats. No toeing the line to score fake internet points. 

You’re smart, and you know this. 

[Gil Bang 26,240]

I happen to believe in (and I try to follow) Christ's teachings, but not in Christ.  The teachings make a lot of sense, but I don't believe that Christ ever existed. 

Am I a Christian?

[Brian Fantana 6,866]

No, he's right. Belief is not enough. You either follow and adhere or you're not a Christian. No more than the fanatic who blows himself up at a crosswalk is a Muslim.

[Brian Fantana 6,866]

Just now, Gil Bang said:

I happen to believe in (and I try to follow) Christ's teachings, but not in Christ.  The teachings make a lot of sense, but I don't believe that Christ ever existed. 

Am I a Christian?

That's a weird belief, honestly. I'm not a believer in God personally, but I have little doubt that he was a real person that existed. Almost all scholars of antiquity agree.

If you're just trying to make a point then I feel stupid.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I happen to believe in (and I try to follow) Christ's teachings, but not in Christ.  The teachings make a lot of sense, but I don't believe that Christ ever existed. 

Am I a Christian?

Nope

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

No, he's right. Belief is not enough. You either follow and adhere or you're not a Christian. No more than the fanatic who blows himself up at a crosswalk is a Muslim.

Huh. You and Brisket should form your own “Works” sect. Call it Bro Calm Down. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,169]

On 5/14/2018 at 1:11 PM, Rex Kramer said:

All of this. 

In this very thread, we see Rex self identify as evangelical, then say "all of this" to a post  that says they have never met anyone that self identifies as evangelical.  What am I missing?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

In this very thread, we see Rex self identify as evangelical, then say "all of this" to a post  that says they have never met anyone that self identifies as evangelical.  What am I missing?

 

On 5/14/2018 at 3:31 PM, Rex Kramer said:

I think his post was pretty accurate. I know what evangelical means in the historical and modern church.  So, in a thread about evangelicals such as this, I say “that’s me.”  However, I would never initially self-identify as such. Rather, I’d say “Methodist”, “Christian” or “Protestant”, probably in that order, before I even thought about evangelical. 

Anecotal, but the only time I hear the term is as a political pejorative or by the media (usually in either a pejorative or matter-of-fact manner discussing a political topic). 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,851]

In this very thread, we see Rex self identify as evangelical, then say "all of this" to a post  that says they have never met anyone that self identifies as evangelical.  What am I missing?

The line in ‘Mere Christianity’ where CS Lewis said
“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,169]

You can't both say "that's me" when people ask for self described evangelicals, and then claim that you would never self-identify as such.  You just got through doing it in the previous sentence, man.  

[Guest]

Just now, NameAlreadyInUse said:

You can't both say "that's me" when people ask for self described evangelicals, and then claim that you would never self-identify as such.  You just got through doing it in the previous sentence, man.  

Words matter. Particularly the word “initially”. 

[Sawbonz 28,223]

can I get a ayhay—MEN

Edited May 17, 2018 by Sawbonz

[SubliminalHorn 7,009]

24 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

That's a weird belief, honestly. I'm not a believer in God personally, but I have little doubt that he was a real person that existed. Almost all scholars of antiquity agree.

If you're just trying to make a point then I feel stupid.

What actual proof is there? Truly curious

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

What actual proof is there? Truly curious

Peer Jewish and Roman historians wrote of his existence. There’s little doubt among scholars he existed. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,851]

What actual proof is there? Truly curious

More “proof” than virtually any other historical figure that did not hold high office at the end of the Roman Republic. The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is non-controversial at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,169]

11 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Words matter. Particularly the word “initially”. 

Except you were agreeing with a post that didn't use the qualifier "initially," You added that later.  So are you qualifying your agreement?

And by the way, as a former Baptist, I wouldn't think of UMC as evangelical, at least not in the way its used today.  And so I'd expect you wouldn't self identify that way, because I would expect you wouldn't think of yourself that way.  That term has been co opted by non denominational churches to mean something different than the technical definition you were likely thinking of.  Whenever that word is brought up on a political board, I think its pretty safe for you to assume it doesn't mean the same thing and therefore doesn't apply to you and therefore you don't have to get defensive and lash out.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Except you were agreeing with a post that didn't use the qualifier "initially," You added that later.  So are you qualifying your agreement?

And by the way, as a former Baptist, I wouldn't think of UMC as evangelical, at least not in the way its used today.  And so I'd expect you wouldn't self identify that way, because I would expect you wouldn't think of yourself that way.  That term has been co opted by non denominational churches to mean something different than the technical definition you were likely thinking of.  Whenever that word is brought up on a political board, I think its pretty safe for you to assume it doesn't mean the same thing and therefore doesn't apply to you and therefore you don't have to get defensive and lash out.

Because his post was right, if a little hyperbolic. And you don’t know the historical meaning of evangelical, or its modern use. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,169]

How you do you know if he's ever met someone who called themselves an evangelical?  Presumably he'd read the thread and saw you had already done so.  If that qualifies as "knowing" you, then he was demonstrably wrong, because you had already self identified at that point.  Before you agreed with him that you don't know anyone that would self-identify that way.  After you'd already done it.  This is a confusing turn of events.  I'm just going to leave it at that.

Enjoy your walk with the lord, man.  

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The line in ‘Mere Christianity’ where CS Lewis said
“A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I’m not mistaken, the same exact book and author said also that one does not cease to be Christian due to sin and stumbling, but rather can be described as bad Christians (with the emphasis on them still being Christian). Which is an interesting turn here because you’ve quoted the text here and Brisket quoted you with that other line of “not a Christian but want to be”. All you need do is believe and have faith to be a Christian. The rest will follow if the character of your heart is true, and nobody but God knows the character of a mans heart.

[Gatorubet 30,720]

On 5/15/2018 at 3:32 PM, phdhorn said:

I've generally tried to stay out of shit on the new board (although this thread is sorta kinda in control).  But I'll play this one time.

I was an Evangelical (yes, I considered myself an Evangelical first, denomination second) for a long time when younger.  Eventually I decided that some of the practical day-to-day applications of that theology were more subjective than "required".  I no longer consider myself one.  However, this has done nothing but increase my belief that this God thing is so big, mysterious, and unfathomable (as Einstein himself said) that to reduce it to mere sophism is, well, more irrelevant than the target of the sophists.

At my mom's funeral last week, 3 of my best friends back then, and still very close to my heart, met up with me to express condolences re: my mom.  All 3 of them are still pretty hard-core practicing Evangelicals.

One is a PhD in physics, and runs an entire agency on materials research for weaponry for the Armed Services.  He's so fucking brutally intelligent it hurts.

The second is a Phi Beta Kappa in History, and spent 35 years teaching high-level high schoolers.  He retired and taught history to Koreans in Seoul for 2 years.  Won numerous awards in history.  Brilliant fellow.

The final is a pastor, ex math teacher and phys ed instructor.  His "life code" would probably make 2/3 of you shit your pants here (what's "proper" and what's "not".  Yet he's been a terrific Elvis impersonator, and is regarded by most of my old crowd as one of the most dynamic, friendly, and non-condemning individual ever.  He's also arguably still my best friend after 40 years.  We are so different, but when we meet up, it's phenomenal.

Their creed is very conservative, but in no way harsh.  The fact that they make me laugh and talk animatedly about world topics and history as easily and naturally as slipping on a pair of flip flops is a testament to their amazing intellects and brilliance.

There are a helluva lot of stereotypes which get slung around on these boards about "Evangelicals" and most of them end up with a highly biased view of a major, huge swath of people.   These guys know more about physics, history, and culture as anyone I can run into.  I don't share the same theological applications as they do, but I would take a bullet for any of them.

Just be careful of slinging stereotypes out there for "Evangelicals" when the real stereotypes are often the really inaccurate picture of what they are.

So.....you have several smart friends?

 

We are talking about the retards who think the world is 6K years old and that New Orleans was drowned by God because of Southern Decadence weekend.   

 

 

You knowing three non-morons does not refute the existence of morons.   Earth is not floating on the back of a giant turtle, either.   Think what you want to at worship, just don't bring that stupidity to work and secular pursuits like passing legislation.  ...'Cause you can core drill till magma melts your equipment, but you won't strike turtle.    Similarly, God is not sending hurricanes at the gays, nor is He faking geology. mineralogy, astronomy, physics, or carbon-14 testing.  He's just not. 

[F250 29,201]

53 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Huh. You and Brisket should form your own “Works” sect. Call it Bro Calm Down. 

Rex, we are Methodists not Southern Baptists. We are to practice what Wesley calls a "practical divinity". I get your reference to "Works" but as Methodists the Wesleyan synthesis of faith/works puts us heavily on the "Faith Without Works Is Dead" side of the debate. On the issue of justification, we are unlike other Protestants and are similar to the Orthodox. Anyways, the phrase being discussed is compatible with the doctrine of the UMC but definitely not the Southern Baptist Convention.

 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,851]

Sure, Cookie and Rex, but what is belief, really? You’re acting like that’s some trivial thing with no output. That’s why the whole grace vs works debate is such bullshit: if your faith is the real thing a whole lot of other behaviors and aspects of your inner life show it.

So when I hear about how all it takes to be a a Christian is belief, that’s like saying all you need to be rich is money.

 

One of my favorite parables is the very tough parable of the wicked tenants as told in the Gospel of Luke, where he says

“‘The stone the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone’

 

Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”

 

I had a pastor at one point who had a short prayer given to him in seminary that he repeated once to me:

“Lord, break me.”

 

If your faith is so whole and complete that you have no doubts intruding into your heart or sin between yourself and the divine, you don’t need that prayer, so good for you.

 

But I do live in doubt and sin. All I can do about it is fall on the stone.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[Anastasis 23,720]

23 hours ago, F250 said:

Two days ago, I was checking out at HEB when the guy behind me in line starts up a conversation by saying, "Did you know you've been lied to?" This guy was a dead ringer for the actor Kevin Durand (evil mercenary from Lost) which added to the "WTF?" moment.

I reply, "I hope you aren't referring to my wife." He laughs and says, "No, I was talking about this..." he shows me his phone with pictures of the galaxy but the stars are fuzzy. "Notice how the stars don't appear as you would expect? You were told the earth rotates around the sun but..." I cut him off with a laugh and say, "This is about the earth being flat I assume." He replies with "I'm just trying to offer you some useful information... There are other lies we've all been told." I turn away to pay the cashier.

The HEB cashier and bagger have this incredulous look on their faces. The guy continues to ramble on but I tune him out and I'm just giggling at the absurdity. I apologize to the guy while laughing and tell him that I thought I was on a hidden camera show. He just implores me to do my own research. That's when I noticed his basket.

He had a few litters of alkaline water, Probiotics, chia seeds, various vitamins, a handful of boxes with Non-GMO labels, you get the picture. I told him that I don't believe the earth is flat but I believe vaccines are toxic. Somehow I knew he would agree, he then starts up with, "see it's the same concept, it's all lies." I grabbed my receipt and said I was kidding about the vaccines and walk off. He gives me one last "Do your research!"

 

TL/DR: A pseudo science anti-vaxxer/flat earther attempted to proselytize me at HEB. No pamphlets were involved.

 

 

Must report the location of the HEB. 

[Anastasis 23,720]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

More “proof” than virtually any other historical figure that did not hold high office at the end of the Roman Republic. The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is non-controversial at this point.

Mr. Bozo, may I please introduce you to Mr. Brick. 

[Anastasis 23,720]

20 minutes ago, F250 said:

Rex, we are Methodists not Southern Baptists. We are to practice what Wesley calls a "practical divinity". I get your reference to "Works" but as Methodists the Wesleyan synthesis of faith/works puts us heavily on the "Faith Without Works Is Dead" side of the debate. On the issue of justification, we are unlike other Protestants and are similar to the Orthodox. Anyways, the phrase being discussed is compatible with the doctrine of the UMC but definitely not the Southern Baptist Convention.

fist bump

[David Dennison 19,542]

1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

Peer Jewish and Roman historians wrote of his existence. There’s little doubt among scholars he existed. 

There's a good amount of doubt among scholars.

What are the names of those Jewish and Roman historians?

[F250 29,201]

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Must report the location of the HEB. 

Stone Oak HEB in San Antonio. The only reason I stopped at that one was because it has a good nutrition section and carries my preferred protein powder. Unfortunately, that was the same reason that quack was there too.

 

[Gil Bang 26,240]

34 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There's a good amount of doubt among scholars.

What are the names of those Jewish and Roman historians?

Duh.  Saul and Tony, of course. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Sure, Cookie and Rex, but what is belief, really? You’re acting like that’s some trivial thing with no output. That’s why the whole grace vs works debate is such bullshit: if your faith is the real thing a whole lot of other behaviors and aspects of your inner life show it.

So when I hear about how all it takes to be a a Christian is belief, that’s like saying all you need to be rich is money.

 

One of my favorite parables is the very tough parable of the wicked tenants as told in the Gospel of Luke, where he says

“‘The stone the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone’

 

Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”

 

I had a pastor at one point who had a short prayer given to him in seminary that he repeated once to me:

“Lord, break me.”

 

If your faith is so whole and complete that you have no doubts intruding into your heart or sin between yourself and the divine, you don’t need that prayer, so good for you.

 

But I do live in doubt and sin. All I can do about it is fall on the stone.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

I live with doubt and sin every day.  I never said I was comfortable with merely being a Christian and going about my day blissfully ignorant of my shortcomings.  I just said that I am a Christian because of my belief alone.  I did not feel the need to expound until now; I was responding to Brisket's post. 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There's a good amount of doubt among scholars.

What are the names of those Jewish and Roman historians?

Start with Josephus and Tacitus.  There is not "a good amount of doubt".  There will always be doubt, but the vast majority of non-Surly poster scholars agree he existed.

[Anastasis 23,720]

oh god, take my spirit now. 

[David Dennison 19,542]

6 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Start with Josephus and Tacitus.  There is not "a good amount of doubt".  There will always be doubt, but the vast majority of non-Surly poster scholars agree he existed.

They were both born after the crucifixion. Not exactly peers.

[WhatTheBuck 28,930]

On May 15, 2018 at 11:15 PM, F250 said:

Two days ago, I was checking out at HEB when the guy behind me in line starts up a conversation by saying, "Did you know you've been lied to?" This guy was a dead ringer for the actor Kevin Durand (evil mercenary from Lost) which added to the "WTF?" moment.

I reply, "I hope you aren't referring to my wife." He laughs and says, "No, I was talking about this..." he shows me his phone with pictures of the galaxy but the stars are fuzzy. "Notice how the stars don't appear as you would expect? You were told the earth rotates around the sun but..." I cut him off with a laugh and say, "This is about the earth being flat I assume." He replies with "I'm just trying to offer you some useful information... There are other lies we've all been told." I turn away to pay the cashier.

The HEB cashier and bagger have this incredulous look on their faces. The guy continues to ramble on but I tune him out and I'm just giggling at the absurdity. I apologize to the guy while laughing and tell him that I thought I was on a hidden camera show. He just implores me to do my own research. That's when I noticed his basket.

He had a few litters of alkaline water, Probiotics, chia seeds, various vitamins, a handful of boxes with Non-GMO labels, you get the picture. I told him that I don't believe the earth is flat but I believe vaccines are toxic. Somehow I knew he would agree, he then starts up with, "see it's the same concept, it's all lies." I grabbed my receipt and said I was kidding about the vaccines and walk off. He gives me one last "Do your research!"

 

TL/DR: A pseudo science anti-vaxxer/flat earther attempted to proselytize me at HEB. No pamphlets were involved.

 

 

Pics or it didn't happen. 

[cactusflinthead 27,627]

OatmealRaisinCookie 

what was your handle on the shag? I am going to start calling out names I do not know. 

[cactusflinthead 27,627]

19 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Start with Josephus and Tacitus.  There is not "a good amount of doubt".  There will always be doubt, but the vast majority of non-Surly poster scholars agree he existed.

Where in Tacitus? I got one handy. Josephus too while you are at it. Chop chop

[TDunk 590]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They were both born after the crucifixion. Not exactly peers.

Too bad Instagram wasn't around yet.  

[F250 29,201]

11 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Pics or it didn't happen. 

Bro, that would be gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Seriously, though that is the first time I've ever had something like that happen. Flat earther not an unwanted conspiracy theorist. I've encountered some weird people at gun stores before.

[Anastasis 23,720]

Can we get a religion or philosophy board similar to the old quacks board so we can sequester these threads away from politics?

[F250 29,201]

I'm familiar with the is it really Jesus or Paul talking concept which is similar to the socratic problem. But is there any actual consensus amongst scholars that support the Jesus myth?