Charles Barkley Calls Conservatives "fake Christians"

[Steven]

Not the number... specifically your statement you had in quotations...

I don't have my bible handy at the moment.

To me specifically... Hell, Oblivian, or Whatever.... those are very different things. You are basing this on an assumption that suffering and eternal separation from God, that there is a God to begin with, and that you know what the existance of said being entails. But you cannot argue a point unless everyone agrees on some fundamentals...

For example... eternal suffering=oblivion.... I was in the oblivion for an infinity of time before I was born and I didn't seem to mind... why would eternity of it again bug me?

great questions and good logic.

I have no problem with it.

remember im not selling here - im simply responding to and unpacking in greater detail that which was brought up and discussed by yourself and Mark on this number thing and only teh Jews get in and all that fun stuff......

and your completely right in theory about arguing a point unless we all agree.

im glad you said that.

because if you go back to my original long winded posts in here you'll find me talking about that and asking some defining questions, since people were/are so free to talk about "real" Christians......and what they are or are not.....and so Ive asked for definitions, since we all have our own.....will the real Christian please stand up??

and of course that would be me standing up, Im the real christian.

at least to me I am. But who am I anyway? I dont got no steenkeen badge, no halo, no white suit......

by the way Im at work and dont have my bible either - in fact its in the trunk of the car. I usually go online for a quick biblical referance - you can do it by topical subject matter in many instances.

[Destroit]

is that really whats biblical?

if so then youd better take out pretty much all of the new testament and anything concerning the Apostle Paul who was sent to the Gentiles specifically.

and then youd better go back into Old Testament text and omit or edit out any text that shows how pagans and gentiles were allowed to be grafted into the Israelite camp

and then you'd better omit Jesus charge to his disciples to preach to all nations and tougues - even Mexican Americans from Hollywood by way of Garden City.

yes it does make everyone fake and Christ obsolete if its just like whats being insinuated here.

PS - nothing in life has ever been fair.

thats a man made ideology, it has nothing to do with reality, never has.

ah but potential....now there's something to consider Chernobyl. Your such a giver upper, and I wish you were not, because i dig on you.

I'm not giving up on God 'cause I know he's there. I was just confused as to why only "60,000 people" only get in "according to the bible" and why they're Jewish. I mean...that's crazy...

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Sub-point about terminology:

Language becomes more and more cumbersome and less useful the more we try to split hairs and use lesser-knwon definitions for well understood terms. Words like "God" and "Hell" and such have a fairly long established sense of what they mean. To confuse the issue by not using the culturally agreed upon concepts of the terms just causes confusion and does nothing to further the discussion.

"God" is, in everyday English, a supernatural creator-being (at minimum) not some wishy-washy idea about what the meaning of the universe is that may have no preternatural (aka is consistent with atheism) characteristics. If we dont mean "god" as its traditionally understood then we use some other terminology rather than confuse the issue. If we believe in the existence or non existence of this being is beside the point.

"Hell" is an eternal place of torment, were a beings go after death if they are judged to be unworthy. if we mean something else, use different terms as to not confuse the issue. If we believe in the existence of this traditional interpretation is beside the point.

"The Real Jesus/Bible/Etc "

"Word for word" (Formal) translations (KJV, NKJV,RSV etc) have problems "Thought For Thought" (Dynamic) translations (TNIV,NIV,NWT) also have similar problems along with "Natural Language" translations (Paraphrased) (CEV, The Message, etc). They all have strengths as well. Our own ego often gets in the way and that what "our" interpretation is is the correct one, and "count the hits and ignore the misses". Basically downplaying or ignoring anything contradictory to what we already believe and focus on only information that agrees with our existing ideas.

In terms of the bible good luck on finding "the real" bible. Even some of the basic tenants of "traditional" Christianity have virtually no consensus in actual scholarship, only in the minds of the faithful of one particular school of thought. Being a longtime student of actual scholarship (rather than just say, random scatter-shots or narrow-viewing of on particular school of thought) there are extremely strong arguments for almost totally contradictory interpretations.

Once you start taking into account historical time frames and various other sources that aren't nessisarly right in the bible-proper it gets even more murky. There's very little, if any "overwhelming consensus" on hardly any point other than from the specific organized religions (not actual scholarship). The actual historical translators and fact-based scholarship points to endlessly contradictiory concepts. There is some consensus on some things, but its virtually never definitive in terms of what the overall "point" is.

We have no original texts of any of the books of the bible, and even if we did, the man-made documents and further man-made errors and then further man-decided inclusions and exclusions of what other man-made documents to include or exclude also make things even murkier.

[jadnifer]

I would have to say that, from what I've seen of Americans, most Christians are fake Christians.

It is sad to say that SOME of them are. Not ALL, I dont consider myself a fake Christian, but it's sad to know that they are out there.

[jadnifer]

Um... being pushy about thier faith is a core Christian value. They are sopposed to convert or at least try to convert everyone they encounter.

I see what you are trying to get at here but I think that you are going about it the wrong way. It's not that we are supposed to convert everyone OR be pushy about it at least that was what I was taught to believe. If someone is curious about it, I will tell them but I would never ever push it on them because that would make them turn away most likely.

[torn asunder]

I'm not giving up on God 'cause I know he's there. I was just confused as to why only "60,000 people" only get in "according to the bible" and why they're Jewish. I mean...that's crazy...

if you look at any organized religion, it will tell you that anyone who doesn't believe the way they do will either go to hell/oblivion, or not be allowed into "heaven"...

if this is true, then everybody is going to go to everyone else's religious hell, and who will that leave to go to heaven? nobody...

it's all a separatist joke, to me - all religions have a small piece of the answer, but not one has the entire answer. i think, if you take a little of each religion and combine it into one, you might be halfway to the "truth", whatever that may be.

(of course, i have my own beliefs, but i'm not getting into those at this point...)

[torn asunder]

BRAVO!!

Sub-point about terminology:

Language becomes more and more cumbersome and less useful the more we try to split hairs and use lesser-knwon definitions for well understood terms. Words like "God" and "Hell" and such have a fairly long established sense of what they mean. To confuse the issue by not using the culturally agreed upon concepts of the terms just causes confusion and does nothing to further the discussion.

"God" is, in everyday English, a supernatural creator-being (at minimum) not some wishy-washy idea about what the meaning of the universe is that may have no preternatural (aka is consistent with atheism) characteristics. If we dont mean "god" as its traditionally understood then we use some other terminology rather than confuse the issue. If we believe in the existence or non existence of this being is beside the point.

"Hell" is an eternal place of torment, were a beings go after death if they are judged to be unworthy. if we mean something else, use different terms as to not confuse the issue. If we believe in the existence of this traditional interpretation is beside the point.

"The Real Jesus/Bible/Etc "

"Word for word" (Formal) translations (KJV, NKJV,RSV etc) have problems "Thought For Thought" (Dynamic) translations (TNIV,NIV,NWT) also have similar problems along with "Natural Language" translations (Paraphrased) (CEV, The Message, etc). They all have strengths as well. Our own ego often gets in the way and that what "our" interpretation is is the correct one, and "count the hits and ignore the misses". Basically downplaying or ignoring anything contradictory to what we already believe and focus on only information that agrees with our existing ideas.

In terms of the bible good luck on finding "the real" bible. Even some of the basic tenants of "traditional" Christianity have virtually no consensus in actual scholarship, only in the minds of the faithful of one particular school of thought. Being a longtime student of actual scholarship (rather than just say, random scatter-shots or narrow-viewing of on particular school of thought) there are extremely strong arguments for almost totally contradictory interpretations.

Once you start taking into account historical time frames and various other sources that aren't nessisarly right in the bible-proper it gets even more murky. There's very little, if any "overwhelming consensus" on hardly any point other than from the specific organized religions (not actual scholarship). The actual historical translators and fact-based scholarship points to endlessly contradictiory concepts. There is some consensus on some things, but its virtually never definitive in terms of what the overall "point" is.

We have no original texts of any of the books of the bible, and even if we did, the man-made documents and further man-made errors and then further man-decided inclusions and exclusions of what other man-made documents to include or exclude also make things even murkier.

[jadnifer]

if you look at any organized religion, it will tell you that anyone who doesn't believe the way they do will either go to hell/oblivion, or not be allowed into "heaven"...

if this is true, then everybody is going to go to everyone else's religious hell, and who will that leave to go to heaven? nobody...

it's all a separatist joke, to me - all religions have a small piece of the answer, but not one has the entire answer. i think, if you take a little of each religion and combine it into one, you might be halfway to the "truth", whatever that may be.

(of course, i have my own beliefs, but i'm not getting into those at this point...)

This is exactly why I find it quite hard to believe everything that one religion preaches.

[Shade Everdark]

Is this the part where I jack the thread by showing up in here and saying none of you has the first real clue about the Japanese language? Because I can, if you want.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I would like to point out that the Arch Bishop of Canterbury agrees with me about the whole concept. It's not a language problem, it's a misconception problem. There is no place in the Bible thats says the humans go to Heaven or Hell when we die. Never has, in any laungage.

The Aremiac word used to describe what happens to those who are judged unworthy translates to "nothingness". Oblivian. Not hell.

Hell, the pit or any one of many names given it is where Satan fell when he was tossed out of heaven. The Bible, never once, says we go there.

[phee]

I would like to point out that the Arch Bishop of Canterbury agrees with me about the whole concept. It's not a language problem, it's a misconception problem. There is no place in the Bible thats says the humans go to Heaven or Hell when we die. Never has, in any laungage.

The Aremiac word used to describe what happens to those who are judged unworthy translates to "nothingness". Oblivian. Not hell.

Hell, the pit or any one of many names given it is where Satan fell when he was tossed out of heaven. The Bible, never once, says we go there.

That is as I understand it as well.

[jadnifer]

So, technically speaking, there is a heaven and a hell, but no person that passes on actually goes there? Am I understanding this right?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Heaven is where God and the Angels reside. When the second coming happens, Christ will create a new Heaven on Earth and rule there for 1000 years with all the devout that had passed jugdement.

Hell, is the pit that Lucifer and his followers where thrown into when they were cast out of Heaven. Lucifer was then given dominion over the Earth.. as in He is in charge. He was not bound to stay in hell. Nor is he barred from Heaven, as is evidant in Job when he strides into God's court.

[ttogreh]

Gaf, again? Really?

There is no such thing as "The Muslims". Islam is not a monolith. Turkey is a secular republic. Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Atheism, and any other ity or ism has had its fair share of fanaticism, extremism, and violence carried out in its name.

Now, there are two ways that this is going to play out. I am either going to be able to consistently and easily dismiss any point you bring up about Islam and its "inherent evil", until you start throwing straw men and aspersions upon my character, at which point every person that has the patience to read through the muck will realize how phenomenally wrong AND stubborn you are...

Or the moderators will intervene again.

I am fine with either option. Are you?

[torn asunder]

Gaf, again? Really?

There is no such thing as "The Muslims". Islam is not a monolith. Turkey is a secular republic. Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Atheism, and any other ity or ism has had its fair share of fanaticism, extremism, and violence carried out in its name.

Now, there are two ways that this is going to play out. I am either going to be able to consistently and easily dismiss any point you bring up about Islam and its "inherent evil", until you start throwing straw men and aspersions upon my character, at which point every person that has the patience to read through the muck will realize how phenomenally wrong AND stubborn you are...

Or the moderators will intervene again.

I am fine with either option. Are you?

the moderator is intervening now - if you have something constructive to add to this discussion, please do so. if youre sole purpose here is to "grind your axe", knock it off...

[ttogreh]

That's just it. I'm not the one making the argument that 1.61 billion people are homicidal psychopaths, torn asunder.

Have you read the Michael Wiener thread, torn asunder? If you have, I find the accusation that I am the one "grinding my axe" to be an ad hominem.

[torn asunder]

That's just it. I'm not the one making the argument that 1.61 billion people are homicidal psychopaths, torn asunder.

Have you read the Michael Wiener thread, torn asunder? If you have, I find the accusation that I am the one "grinding my axe" to be an ad hominem.

1st, stop with the "ad hominem" crap - it's not having the effect you desire...

2nd, of course i've read the thread, otherwise, i wouldn't know why you were trying to jump all over gaf in this thread, true? take some time to think about things...

3rd, i'm going to give you a quote...

The Muslims have a different edict that is spelled out in plane language... Convert, Subjugate or Kill.

at no point in this quote does it say anything about muslims being evil - in fact, at no point in this entire thread has anyone made that accusation. (i know, i double-checked) it states a fact that the koran/quran (sp?) has a defined edict. there was no judgement made. what you're doing is intentionally bringing up a past issue to create drama, and that's not going to fly...

[ttogreh]

No drama, and since you seem to be convinced that I am in the wrong here, I see no reason to defend myself from your delete button.

In any event, I contend that the unmitigated world view that Gaf and others here have espoused from time to time is inflammatory and obviously wrong. The world is a spectrum, not a line in the sand.

[torn asunder]

No drama, and since you seem to be convinced that I am in the wrong here, I see no reason to defend myself from your delete button.

In any event, I contend that the unmitigated world view that Gaf and others here have espoused from time to time is inflammatory and obviously wrong. The world is a spectrum, not a line in the sand.

taken to pm's...

[Steven]

This is exactly why I find it quite hard to believe everything that one religion preaches.

the problem with taking a littel bit of every religion in a combined effort is that some of those religions are indeed seperatist.

mine is. totally.

to take a peice of it when it is designed to be exclusive seems like a failed effort to me.

but thats just me.

and holy sheepshit what happend to t his thread while I was doin Pharoh's taxes???

we've got all kinds of passionate back and forths going on allready?

Chernobyl - im glad you dont give up on God. I didint really mean it in that context....but i appreciate your reply.

[Steven]

Is this the part where I jack the thread by showing up in here and saying none of you has the first real clue about the Japanese language? Because I can, if you want.

I got that idea from a friend who was a corporate linguist who dealt specifically with advertising problems between Japanese and American consumers.

But - Jack duly noted....Jack.

Did we really miss the point that was beign made there with that entry? I should have used Gaelic.

[Steven]

I would like to point out that the Arch Bishop of Canterbury agrees with me about the whole concept. It's not a language problem, it's a misconception problem. There is no place in the Bible thats says the humans go to Heaven or Hell when we die. Never has, in any laungage.

The Aremiac word used to describe what happens to those who are judged unworthy translates to "nothingness". Oblivian. Not hell.

Hell, the pit or any one of many names given it is where Satan fell when he was tossed out of heaven. The Bible, never once, says we go there.

we learned this as young JW's....and were taught the use of the words Sheol and gehenna.

I get what your saying here Gaf.

but then youve got biblical accounts such as the rich man and and Lazurus that do indeed depict fiery torment in great detail. And youve got Jesus telling his disciples that in heaven he was building a place for them.

so although your technically correct - your still sort of not. but im not baggin on ya.

[Steven]

Gaf, again? Really?

There is no such thing as "The Muslims". Islam is not a monolith. Turkey is a secular republic. Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Atheism, and any other ity or ism has had its fair share of fanaticism, extremism, and violence carried out in its name.

Now, there are two ways that this is going to play out. I am either going to be able to consistently and easily dismiss any point you bring up about Islam and its "inherent evil", until you start throwing straw men and aspersions upon my character, at which point every person that has the patience to read through the muck will realize how phenomenally wrong AND stubborn you are...

Or the moderators will intervene again.

I am fine with either option. Are you?

what in THE WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HERE JACK?

may I humbly submit a "wow" at this point.

[Steven]

1st, stop with the "ad hominem" crap - it's not having the effect you desire...

2nd, of course i've read the thread, otherwise, i wouldn't know why you were trying to jump all over gaf in this thread, true? take some time to think about things...

3rd, i'm going to give you a quote...

at no point in this quote does it say anything about muslims being evil - in fact, at no point in this entire thread has anyone made that accusation. (i know, i double-checked) it states a fact that the koran/quran (sp?) has a defined edict. there was no judgement made. what you're doing is intentionally bringing up a past issue to create drama, and that's not going to fly...

and 4th - I'm going to say wow.

wow.

[sass_in_the_pants]

I suspect my comments a this point will only be white noise...it seems the conversation has gotten broader, which is fine, I just had something to say regarding the original point.

Which is...I don't really mind assholes coming to my church. I mean, if you're an asshole, you probably SHOULD be going to church. After all, that means you've got work to do, right? And we're all working with what we were given, right? Maybe you have a short temper, maybe you're too harsh, you do the can with what you've got.

Even the best Christians screw up...say the wrong thing, have bad days. It happens.