On Feb 17, 2:10 am, Peggy <[email protected]> wrote: > And how much convolutedness and yappiness do you allow yourself?
I do like parentheticals, so I suspect that I am guilty of convolutedness, but you are the first person to accuse my posts of being "yappy". The letter "y" is above the letter "h" on the standard QWERTY keyboard. Perhaps you meant to type "hapiness"? If so, I allow myself a fair amount of hapiness, but find it often elusive in the daily grind of work, care for children, etc. How much hapiness do you allow yourself? > Will you ever get to a point where you sort it out? It's all, and only, up > to you. The "it" in your sentence has no clear antecedent. I interpret your meaning as (roughly) "Life, The Universe, and Everything". Life is a difficult thing to sort out, and I would be in deep trouble if I truly believed that it was all and only up to me to do so. Fortunately, I'm not a solipsist and happily incorporate the ideas and advice of others. That is why I read books and engage others in conversations. Many people on this forum (such as Joe, Brock, Bridge and even (on occasion) Michele) have unwittingly helped me to sort things out. > > "This strikes me as too strong. Mr. unpronounceable said "To people who > are on this site who are against religion like myself,you have > thoroughly shown and proven part of the reason that we hold such > sentiments" > > and you replied... > > "Note the word "part". The behaviour of (many) Christians *does* > provide a reason to doubt the faith (albeit not a decisive reason). No > matter how you nuance it, Christianity makes the claim that believers > are in some sense "new creatures in Christ" whose lives in some sense > testifies to the grace of God. Holiness is one of the putative marks > of the Church. If a nonbeliever looks at the lives of Christians and > *doesn't* see any hint of holiness, they will naturally be skeptical > about the existence of transforming grace, no?" > > I'd ask what the hell this means, but you'd probably, exhaustingly, continue. Do you easily become exhausted? That was only a single paragraph and did not make particularly heavy use of jargon. > "The behaviour of (many) Christians *does* > provide a reason to doubt the faith (albeit not a decisive reason). " > > The behaviour of Christians is what it is, the doubt is in you. There is > nothing in belief and faith that is ever going to change. > > "Christianity makes the claim that believers are in some sense "new > creatures in Christ" whose lives in some sense testifies to the grace of > God". > > Please provide your source material. "Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things are passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Corinthians 5:17). Adequate? Note the word "behold", which implies that there *is* something which can actually be seen. > "Holiness is one of the putative marks > of the Church" "Putative"....assumed, accepted. In matters of faith, > yeah. > > "If a nonbeliever looks at the lives of Christians and > *doesn't* see any hint of holiness, they will naturally be skeptical > about the existence of transforming grace, no?" > > What? A non-believer should ignore the lives of Christians , they have no > regard for holiness already. Since Christians are in the same world as nonbelievers and Christians actually do and say things - it is hard for nonbelievers (which, by the way, I never classified myself as), to ignore them. > Much ado about nothing, their skepticism of "the existence of transforming > grace" is moot. Why would > anyone know what the hell "transforming grace" means, if they don't look up > their religious information on the > internet? No such thing. Grace is....amazing. Does the amazingness of Grace extend to the justification of racism? The persitence of racism among Christians is either 1) evidence for Christianity 2) evidence against Christianity 3) neutral Anyone who is not a convinced racist would reject 1). 3) is not plausible - why would so many Christian spokesmen (N.B. - not just "liberals" - even fundamentalist Southern Baptists) apologize for past racism if it really made no difference and didn't harm the perceved plausibility of the Gospel message? That leaves 2). I don't claim that it is decisive evidence, just that Christianity is a little harder to accept given how bound up it has been in racism than it would be if it had maintained comparative racial harmony throughout its history. I would be interested to here your response to this trilemma. > Don't be so so dismissive of things about which you have no clue. Out of curiousity - what was "dismissive" about post? I fail to see how I said anything that a Christian with robust faith and a modicum of perspective would object to. Please explain. I would be curious to see if the Christians on this forum (such as Joe and Brock) who have earned my respect object to anything that I said. > > > ---Original Message ---- > From: scattered <[email protected]> > To: A Civil Religious Debate <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, February 16, 2010 11:20:50 AM > Subject: Re: : Racism > > On Feb 13, 8:00 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hold on a second there, boy-with-the-unpronounceable-name. I have put > > up with enough of that kind of thing on the other site, and I'm not > > gonna stand idly by while you do the same to Michele. > > > *YOU* are the reason you are against religion. Not Michele. Not > > anything she's ever done. The most you can possibly say, if you don't > > like the Christian that she is, is that you think you could be a > > better one. Well go for it! But stop blaming other people for your > > decisions. > > This strikes me as too strong. Mr. unpronounceable said "To people who > are on this site who are against religion like myself,you have > thoroughly shown and proven part of the reason that we hold such > sentiments" > > Note the word "part". The behaviour of (many) Christians *does* > provide a reason to doubt the faith (albeit not a decisive reason). No > matter how you nuance it, Christianity makes the claim that believers > are in some sense "new creatures in Christ" whose lives in some sense > testifies to the grace of God. Holiness is one of the putative marks > of the Church. If a nonbeliever looks at the lives of Christians and > *doesn't* see any hint of holiness, they will naturally be skeptical > about the existence of transforming grace, no? > > -scattered > > > On Feb 13, 12:48 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Semi-literate?I'm very intelligent.I have an I.Q. Of 175.I have a college > > > degree and I also speak languages.Now let's examine my post on this site > > > opposed to yours.Everything you say is based on > > > racism,fabrication,predjudice and absurd assumptions while eveything that > > > I say is based on truth(meaning it is factual,verifiable and > > > provable).You are a discrace and poor representative to the Christians on > > > this site and elsewhere.To people who are on this site who are against > > > religion like myself,you have thoroughly shown and proven part of the > > > reason that we hold such sentiments. > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Michele Gennette <[email protected]> > > > Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:16:52 > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: : Racism > > > > --- On Fri, 2/12/10, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >You are bizarre.You are a racist,prejiduce,sullen and > > > >ignorant individual. > > > > And you are a stupid, semiliterate troublemaker. > > > > xnun > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "A Civil Religious Debate" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit this group > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.-Hide > > > quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A > Civil Religious Debate" group. > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.- Hide quoted > text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
