Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Christian Thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Christian Thread

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 8384858687 92>
Author
Message
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 15 2013 at 19:09
Once or twice I have been known to wonder what it would be like to have the double-standards that I am sometimes accused of. Fortunately this accusation doesn't happen too often but it has happened in the 6 years I've been an Admin. Which is disappointing because I do try to be fair and even-handed when dealing with conflict here, but it's par for the course as they say: if you are in a position of power and on occasion have to wield it, (however reluctantly), then you stand prepared for a bit of verbal lip from those being chastised - "back-chat" as my dear late mum used to call it. But mostly it's innocuous and simply wearisome so I laugh it off with a humorous, sometimes self-depricating, quip and move on. One particularly aggrieved individual did stalk me down and leave very abusive messages on my Facebook page because I had the temerity to suspending his account for a month, which annoyed me at the time but at the end of the day... nothing actually happened, it was just words... just because he called me a cCensoredt doesn't mean I am one, or have to be one... does it? No need for a humorous retort that time, I just hit *delete* and moved on. But that's the price you sometimes have to pay for asking people to cool it when they've been more impolite than is necessary in regular conversation -  as Roger 'The Hat' Manifold famously said on Us and Them 'I mean good manners don't cost nothing do they, eh?' ... aside from some puerile and ultimately futile cyber-bullying that is.
 
So, yeah - double-standards - I think it would be really neat to have them - to be in a position of power and then abuse that power would be so fCensoredingly awesomely cool: I could delete all those tiresome Dream Theatre threads, or any post I didn't like, or any thread suggesting stupid non-prog bands for inclusion here (Animal Collective? No frickin' way douche-bag *delete* ... Joanna Newsome? *delete* ... DragonForce? *delete* ... Elton John? *delete* ... Megabreth? *delete* ... Phil Collins? *delete* ... ); I could fix polls so my favourite bands always win; I could ban people on whim; wrestle poodles and win; play beachball; shave my legs; knock over walls; tease people, brush them aside as though they were matchsticks... but all that seems like an awful lot of work... I could just pick on Geoff instead for playing the victim card too early. Except all that would be just a tad too obvious - the evidence would point straight back to me so it would be impossible to "get away with it" (even with my godless lack of morals and ethics) and whatever scant credibility the "badge" provides would be rendered useless. Absolute power is overrated.

This is the christian thread. I seldom partake of the discussion here out of respect and in a spirit of tolerance, so when I do then it is mostly in my capacity of Site Moderator, I don't come here to debate or discuss - if I want "political" discussion I go to the political discussion thread, if I want religious discussion I go to the athiest/agnostic thread (where I gladly play the home-advantage), so please forgive this little rant-ette.


Edited by Dean - October 15 2013 at 19:44
What?
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2013 at 08:40
The argument being made is that religion and politics are completely separate, and that discussions of religion should not involve politics, and vice versa.  But this has never been the case.  Religion has always informed politics, and politics has always informed religion.  We are at a turning point in American culture - for decades, we've been taught that Christian ethics are conservative (in the American sense), but now more and more people are turning towards moderate, liberal, and progressive views, and are finding resonance in the Bible. 

Here's a way for you to look at this, Dean - let's say politics were brought up in a Rush appreciation thread.  Would you jump in and say "no politics allowed here"?  Is it really fair to say that Rush has never been political?  That's what I'm trying to get at here, and it's completely astounding to me that I am expected to see that these two things should remain separate.  They are not, nor have they ever been.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2013 at 09:08
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

The argument being made is that religion and politics are completely separate, and that discussions of religion should not involve politics, and vice versa.  But this has never been the case.  Religion has always informed politics, and politics has always informed religion.  We are at a turning point in American culture - for decades, we've been taught that Christian ethics are conservative (in the American sense), but now more and more people are turning towards moderate, liberal, and progressive views, and are finding resonance in the Bible. 

Here's a way for you to look at this, Dean - let's say politics were brought up in a Rush appreciation thread.  Would you jump in and say "no politics allowed here"?  Is it really fair to say that Rush has never been political?  That's what I'm trying to get at here, and it's completely astounding to me that I am expected to see that these two things should remain separate.  They are not, nor have they ever been.
You were not ask to cool it beacuse you were discussing politic in the wrong thread, you were ask because of the confrontational way you go about it. Can you not see that phrases like "Shall I go on?" and "Get over it" are agressive and likely to provoke an unwelcome response? Why annoy people by deliberately provoking them when you've already been asked not to?
 
What?
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2013 at 09:38
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Can you not see that phrases like "Shall I go on?" and "Get over it" are agressive and likely to provoke an unwelcome response?


Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

My comment was a tongue-in-cheek use of your own (irresponsible) hermeneutical practices.  The Bible is not some textbook which one may use to pick out verses to support a cause.  It isn't to be used as a pissing match on who can find more Bible verses.  The biblical texts must be respected regarding cultural, historical, and linguistic contexts. 


Can you not see that after someone carefully lays out multiple Biblical passages in support of their position, and then someone else comes along and lazily takes one passage that has nothing to do with their point and uses it to "prove" all that work invalid, and then calls the first person "irresponsible" and uses language like "pissing match" is aggressive and likely to provoke an unwelcome response?  And then when the admin does nothing to reprimand the second person, and then other people jump in on the action of beating up the first person, this might also be seen as aggressive and provoke an unwelcome response?  "Shall I go on" and "get over it" are tame compared to many other possible responses in that scenario.  Please stop playing favorites.
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2013 at 09:44
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2013 at 09:59
get over it then
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2013 at 10:24
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

get over it then

I did.  And I came back.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2013 at 10:25
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Please stop playing favorites.
If I play "favourites" in my role as Forum Moderator then that needs to be adressed.
 
If you cannot seperate my posts here as Forum Moderator and my normal "socialist-liberalist-rationalist-atheist curmudgeon" posts and  if you have an issue with the way I moderate this forum then take it up with another Admin.
 
What?
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2013 at 10:52
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

get over it then

I did.  And I came back.

Why take it so personal. I have read St. Augustine's blog and I did not agree with everything he blogged either. Dean and I have had our differences but never at any time have I found him to be anything but fair. When it comes to doing the job of forum moderator nobody does it better than Dean..........period.
Back to Top
Guldbamsen View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23104
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2013 at 11:08
The problem in here seems to be that it's so difficult to persuade others to lose their stance on something and ultimately agree with 'the truth'....
Whatever 'truth' one may subscribe to, there needs to be a civil tongue about it imho. That's all really.
Geoff, I don't see Dean taking sides here - I don't think I've come across that before actually - at least not while he's wearing an admin hat. 
I'm not a Christian and I don't visit this thread, but I am familiar with the Bible and it's teachings. I've seen almost anything derived from it - most of it boggles the mind if you ask me which is why I leave this place alone, but when people in here start acting in a confrontational manner - that's where the admins will step in. I know Dean said that you should take it to another admin, if you felt he was 'taking sides', but I'm not sure you'll get far in that endeavour (sorry Dean, but I agree with you on this matterTongue) - at least not with me.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams
Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2013 at 11:53
Back to the debate :
In my opinion everything in public is political, religion, art, sports, news, law.
It will always be political. It addresses the way people act together, and that is what politics is about.
The question left is, was Jesus right left middle. 
I think we will never know, the book (s) are not clear, and the times was so different from those we live in now, that its not possible to come up with an objective answer.
So basically you can make him fit whatever you want.

Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20660
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 16 2013 at 15:11
A short primer on what politics actually is.....wiki of course is not the final word.
 
ps: This is the Christian thread..whatever that means, but since politics regarding Jesus was brought up this is helpful in determining what we mean by the word.
 
I do not believe Jesus himself was attempting to be political by any definition we use today, but I do believe that those around him in the Roman govt and Jewish theocracy saw him as some kind of 'threat' to the politics of their day.


Edited by dr wu23 - October 16 2013 at 15:26
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2013 at 07:13
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

A short primer on what politics actually is.....wiki of course is not the final word.
 
ps: This is the Christian thread..whatever that means, but since politics regarding Jesus was brought up this is helpful in determining what we mean by the word.
 
I do not believe Jesus himself was attempting to be political by any definition we use today, but I do believe that those around him in the Roman govt and Jewish theocracy saw him as some kind of 'threat' to the politics of their day.

So...you're saying Jesus WASN'T trying to influence "other people on a civic or individual level"?  (That's the first line of your link.)  So when he gave a sermon on the mount or on a plain, he didn't really want anyone to listen or to think about changing the way they acted?  He just wanted them to ignore everything he said?
Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20660
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 17 2013 at 16:24
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

A short primer on what politics actually is.....wiki of course is not the final word.
 
ps: This is the Christian thread..whatever that means, but since politics regarding Jesus was brought up this is helpful in determining what we mean by the word.
 
I do not believe Jesus himself was attempting to be political by any definition we use today, but I do believe that those around him in the Roman govt and Jewish theocracy saw him as some kind of 'threat' to the politics of their day.

So...you're saying Jesus WASN'T trying to influence "other people on a civic or individual level"?  (That's the first line of your link.)  So when he gave a sermon on the mount or on a plain, he didn't really want anyone to listen or to think about changing the way they acted?  He just wanted them to ignore everything he said?
Well...now you are asking a different question, actually 2 different questions.
I think my last sentence in the above quotation you posted clearly says it all.
No, I do not think Jesus was intentionally being political in the sense we mean today. His mission by all accounts in the NT (which is all we have btw) and by all interpretations from Biblical scholars and theologians was that as the Son Of God his was a religious mission to unite God with man, remove our sins, and allow us to achieve heaven by believing in Jesus. His actions and words certainly affected the people on multiple levels and many probably didn't even understand what he was about, and as I said some in  Roman govt and the Jewish theocracy probably saw him as a threat to their control so they may have seen him that way. But neither time when he was brought before the two courts did he talk about any 'political agenda', said very little,  and what he did say had a religious tone.
If he was about 'politics' of the day then he would have certainly acted differently imo.
 
If you are saying some of his actions and preaching  as a side effect caused some secular political ramifications, then I would agree, but imho that was not his mission nor intention being that he considered himself the Son Of God....assuming one comes at this from a traditional belief position. If we are going to take this in another direction where he was not divine but a political activist using religion as a platform then that imo is another discussion entirely.
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 18 2013 at 01:24
Jesus made exactly one "political" statement: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render to God the things that are God's."

With that statement, he effectively REMOVED Himself from "politics," as that word is generally defined.

That said, if one feels an absolute need to place His ministry within a quasi-"political" viewpoint, consider that the issue He spoke about most often was "the poor," and how they should be treated. If we look around us in the present day, particularly in the U.S., it is pretty clear which "side" is doing more for the poor.

Peace.
Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20660
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 21 2013 at 10:06
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

Jesus made exactly one "political" statement: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render to God the things that are God's."

With that statement, he effectively REMOVED Himself from "politics," as that word is generally defined.

That said, if one feels an absolute need to place His ministry within a quasi-"political" viewpoint, consider that the issue He spoke about most often was "the poor," and how they should be treated. If we look around us in the present day, particularly in the U.S., it is pretty clear which "side" is doing more for the poor.

Peace.
That's about how I see it.
Still waiting for dguitarfan to tell us why we are wrong.
LOL
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
Back to Top
dtguitarfan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 21 2013 at 12:58
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

Jesus made exactly one "political" statement: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render to God the things that are God's."

With that statement, he effectively REMOVED Himself from "politics," as that word is generally defined.

That said, if one feels an absolute need to place His ministry within a quasi-"political" viewpoint, consider that the issue He spoke about most often was "the poor," and how they should be treated. If we look around us in the present day, particularly in the U.S., it is pretty clear which "side" is doing more for the poor.

Peace.
That's about how I see it.
Still waiting for dguitarfan to tell us why we are wrong.
LOL

What's the use?  You're so convinced of your rightness that you won't listen to reason.

The statement you THINK proves that Jesus removed himself from politics?  It was actually a very political statement, because in the Roman empire, there was NOTHING that was not Caesar's.  Caesar was seen as a god, and had the right to demand as much as he wanted.  So to say that ANYTHING didn't belong to him?  That was very political.  Too many people like to focus on the "give to Caesar" portion of that statement, but what the audience at the time would have been shocked about was the second half.
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 21 2013 at 15:46
Why would the"audience" be shocked. Jesus said it to a gathering of Jews who certainly did not think Caesar was a god.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 21 2013 at 16:53
Taken out of context it can mean whatever you want it to mean, that's the point of it:
 
Quote But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money." And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, "Whose is this image and superscription?"

They say unto him, "Caesar's."  Then saith he unto them, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's"

It was a trick answer to a trick question.
What?
Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20660
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 22 2013 at 00:06
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Taken out of context it can mean whatever you want it to mean, that's the point of it:
 
Quote But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money." And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, "Whose is this image and superscription?"

They say unto him, "Caesar's."  Then saith he unto them, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's"

It was a trick answer to a trick question.
Spot on.
Smile
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 8384858687 92>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.258 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.