| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/25/2013 07:27:05 PM · #376 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Two weeks ago? Are you sure, Ray? Can you PROVE it? If you can't prove it, I don't believe it. (Just trying to take a page from y'all's playbook... :))
BTW, you were close...Westleyan. Named after John Westley. |
Well, actually he could prove it. And it wouldn't take thousands of years and millions of people to work it out either.
Message edited by author 2013-04-25 19:27:24. |
|
|
|
04/25/2013 07:36:22 PM · #377 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Please, posting in a thread inviting comment on a subject does not equate to an unsolicited request for someone's attention at their home ... |
Please, when's the last time you've actually had someone show up at your door that wasn't a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness? The technique has long gone out of style. |
...For me it was two weekends ago...can't remember exactly, but I do believe they called themselves Westlayen (phonetic). Right nice folks and interesting.
Ray |
Two weeks ago? Are you sure, Ray? Can you PROVE it? If you can't prove it, I don't believe it. (Just trying to take a page from y'all's playbook... :))
BTW, you were close...Westleyan. Named after John Westley. |
...Actually I might since I happen to know the head honcho at the church. I guess I could ask him if he has some sort of timetable of the places they visited.
I will ask and let you know.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/25/2013 07:55:35 PM · #378 |
| Sweet! Knowing you, I think you've made it on some watch list. :) |
|
|
|
04/26/2013 01:59:32 AM · #379 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, you were close...Westleyan. Named after John Westley. |
Are you sure it's Westleyan and not Wesleyan (without the "T")? Apparently there was a John Westley, but John Wesley was much more influential and I've never heard of a Westleyan Church. |
|
|
|
04/26/2013 02:13:30 AM · #380 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, you were close...Westleyan. Named after John Westley. |
Are you sure it's Westleyan and not Wesleyan (without the "T")? Apparently there was a John Westley, but John Wesley was much more influential and I've never heard of a Westleyan Church. |
There you silly Christians go again, arguing about silly details. ;) lol.. :D
|
|
|
|
04/26/2013 09:40:21 AM · #381 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, you were close...Westleyan. Named after John Westley. |
Are you sure it's Westleyan and not Wesleyan (without the "T")? Apparently there was a John Westley, but John Wesley was much more influential and I've never heard of a Westleyan Church. |
There you silly Christians go again, arguing about silly details. ;) lol.. :D |
Actually the distinction is a critical one. John Wesley was the founder of the Methodists, whereas the Church of Westley is unique to the Princess Bride :-) |
|
|
|
04/26/2013 12:04:09 PM · #382 |
| Yes. My bad. I was being kind to Ray after the oar vs. paddle incident. Rarely does one score points in Rant so easily. I thought I'd give back in kind. ;) (Actually I'm just a poor speller.) |
|
|
|
04/26/2013 01:00:54 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, you were close...Westleyan. Named after John Westley. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Are you sure it's Westleyan and not Wesleyan (without the "T")? Apparently there was a John Westley, but John Wesley was much more influential and I've never heard of a Westleyan Church. |
Originally posted by Cory:
There you silly Christians go again, arguing about silly details. ;) lol.. :D |
Oh, the irony! LOL!!!
I even knew how to spell Wesleyan......isn't there a prominent team in sports from Ohio Wesleyan?
|
|
|
|
04/27/2013 02:29:11 PM · #384 |
Penny showed me this quote, from "Fifth Business" by Robertson Davies:
Originally posted by Robertson Davies:
"Oh, this Christianity! Even when people swear they don't believe in it, the fifteen hundred years of Christianity that has made our world is in their bones, and they want to show they can be Christians without Christ." |
|
|
|
|
04/27/2013 03:01:50 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Penny showed me this quote, from "Fifth Business" by Robertson Davies:
Originally posted by Robertson Davies:
"Oh, this Christianity! Even when people swear they don't believe in it, the fifteen hundred years of Christianity that has made our world is in their bones, and they want to show they can be Christians without Christ." |
|
I think Davies' point is valid, and that Christ's message is indeed in our bones, yet it is possible to be guided by his writings without being convinced of his divinity. One can believe Christ's message is the central tenet of western culture without believing that " No one comes to the Father except through me". After all I do not have to accept Voltaire as a god, or believe him to be perfect in all things to think he was important and worth listening to. |
|
|
|
04/27/2013 04:39:56 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Penny showed me this quote, from "Fifth Business" by Robertson Davies:
Originally posted by Robertson Davies:
"Oh, this Christianity! Even when people swear they don't believe in it, the fifteen hundred years of Christianity that has made our world is in their bones, and they want to show they can be Christians without Christ." |
|
I think Davies' point is valid, and that Christ's message is indeed in our bones, yet it is possible to be guided by his writings without being convinced of his divinity. One can believe Christ's message is the central tenet of western culture without believing that " No one comes to the Father except through me". After all I do not have to accept Voltaire as a god, or believe him to be perfect in all things to think he was important and worth listening to. |
Can we also remember that Jesus did not invent a new religion or even ideas about ways to live, but was rather a preacher of a return to a more fundamental practice of a long-established religion and its rules and tenets....
Message edited by author 2013-04-27 16:40:13. |
|
|
|
04/27/2013 06:11:26 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Penny showed me this quote, from "Fifth Business" by Robertson Davies:
Originally posted by Robertson Davies:
"Oh, this Christianity! Even when people swear they don't believe in it, the fifteen hundred years of Christianity that has made our world is in their bones, and they want to show they can be Christians without Christ." |
|
Truth be told, a great number of the practices of the Christian church are not particular to that religion, but rather are things that were adopted from other societies' norms, mores and practices.
A great number of the practices that the church would have us believe as being their exclusive domain, have and continue to exist in societies and individual far removed from Christianity. Adhering to the "Golden Rule" is something that the majority in society strive to foster and practice, regardless of their persuasion, and even non-believers have been known to demonstrate this tendency.
Some may view this as being a desire to "demonstrate that they can be Christians without Christ", but I am of the opinion that to some, no such desire exists... it is merely a demonstration of the concept of reciprocity that is... or at least should be... the catalyst for personal behaviour.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/01/2013 07:07:49 PM · #388 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Can we also remember that Jesus did not invent a new religion or even ideas about ways to live, but was rather a preacher of a return to a more fundamental practice of a long-established religion and its rules and tenets.... |
I'm just going to come back to this because I think it's interesting. Don't you think Jesus viewed himself as a "game changer"? Ranging from his Sermon on the Mount where he keeps saying, "you have heard it is said...but I say..." to his claims of divinity expressed throughout the gospels. You will also have to define your use of "fundamental" because these days that tends to mean a "more literal" interpretation which is very different than what he preached (ie. motivations being more important than actions). I think overall your statement above is quite incorrect. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 07:32:31 AM · #389 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think overall your statement above is quite incorrect. |
So what?
Could you be a bit more explicit and clearly delineate what it is that you don't agree with... and while you are at it define what you think "fundamental" means.
Once informed of your views and interpretation, we could then decide whether we agree with them or not. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 07:47:43 AM · #390 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Can we also remember that Jesus did not invent a new religion or even ideas about ways to live, but was rather a preacher of a return to a more fundamental practice of a long-established religion and its rules and tenets.... |
I'm just going to come back to this because I think it's interesting. Don't you think Jesus viewed himself as a "game changer"? Ranging from his Sermon on the Mount where he keeps saying, "you have heard it is said...but I say..." to his claims of divinity expressed throughout the gospels. You will also have to define your use of "fundamental" because these days that tends to mean a "more literal" interpretation which is very different than what he preached (ie. motivations being more important than actions). I think overall your statement above is quite incorrect. |
When you say 'gospels' - I presume you are referring to the subset that the church has declared to be 'true' - not the wider set that tell a different story? |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 11:35:59 AM · #391 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think overall your statement above is quite incorrect. |
So what?
Could you be a bit more explicit and clearly delineate what it is that you don't agree with... and while you are at it define what you think "fundamental" means.
Once informed of your views and interpretation, we could then decide whether we agree with them or not. :O)
Ray |
Ray, you need to read more carefully. I did both those things in my post.
Paul, I sure do. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 12:00:15 PM · #392 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Can we also remember that Jesus did not invent a new religion or even ideas about ways to live, but was rather a preacher of a return to a more fundamental practice of a long-established religion and its rules and tenets.... |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm just going to come back to this because I think it's interesting. Don't you think Jesus viewed himself as a "game changer"? Ranging from his Sermon on the Mount where he keeps saying, "you have heard it is said...but I say..." to his claims of divinity expressed throughout the gospels. You will also have to define your use of "fundamental" because these days that tends to mean a "more literal" interpretation which is very different than what he preached (ie. motivations being more important than actions). I think overall your statement above is quite incorrect. |
Paul's use of fundamental in the context of his statement sure seems perfectly clear, and his eloquently put premise that Christians don't have the copyright on decent thoughts and actions rings true.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 12:10:27 PM · #393 |
Ran into a question in a Christianity forum thread researching the ethic of reciprocity, aka Golden Rule.
"Is it a violation of the Golden Rule for Christians to adopt a belief system that judges half the world to hell?"
Interesting question, eh?
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 12:12:12 PM · #394 |
I don't think I was disagreeing with any of that Jeb.
I'll be a little more clear about "fundamental". When using that term in the context of religion we might quickly jump to "fundamentalism" which tends to be partly defined as having a "literal interpretation of scripture" (fudamentalism, as a movement in the Christian world, was in reaction to modernism which preached a very figurative interpretation of scriptures.) Anyway, my point is that, in this sense, Jesus was hardly fundamental. His Sermon on the Mount had an overriding theme that motivations were as important or even more important than following the law. That we can't just take the literal interpretation of "do not kill" we must also worry about hating others as well (as an example).
Now, if Paul used fundamental to mean "more basic" then my point above is less applicable. This is why I asked for clarification.
Message edited by author 2013-05-02 12:15:47. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 12:15:06 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Ran into a question in a Christianity forum thread researching the ethic of reciprocity, aka Golden Rule.
"Is it a violation of the Golden Rule for Christians to adopt a belief system that judges half the world to hell?"
Interesting question, eh? |
No. Sorta boring. The answer is "no" and it seems like one has very little to do with the other... |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 12:15:19 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now, if Paul used fundamental to mean "more basic" then my point above is less applicable. |
Seemed that way to me.......8~)
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 12:20:28 PM · #397 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Ran into a question in a Christianity forum thread researching the ethic of reciprocity, aka Golden Rule.
"Is it a violation of the Golden Rule for Christians to adopt a belief system that judges half the world to hell?"
Interesting question, eh? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No. Sorta boring. The answer is "no" and it seems like one has very little to do with the other... |
Okay.......but going back to the old "What if you're wrong?" question, then this question certainly has some substance, not to mention that an awful lot of us have a problem with the whole "Accept and believe, or else." kind of thinking.
I know I'm a special kind of hard-headed, but I don't like to be threatened, or have a carrot dangled in front of me to influence my character & behaviors.
The ethic of reciprocity works just peachy for me.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 01:13:29 PM · #398 |
Well, if I'm wrong then it all doesn't really matter, does it?
Even then, if I fully believe the road is washed out ahead, shouldn't I tell someone else about it? I would expect the same of others. If they did so and were incorrect, I wouldn't fault their intentions, just their information. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 01:25:11 PM · #399 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, if I'm wrong then it all doesn't really matter, does it? |
There can be consequences for those acting on your incorrect information -- they might have to take a 100-mile detour, run out of gas, be late for a wedding ... or perhaps you're just re-directing them to the toll road where your cousin has the franchise ... ;-)
Yes, I meant "fundamental" more in the sense of "basic" than "literal" ... it's my understanding that Jesus felt that "his people" has "slipped" in the practice of their religion (Judaism, right?) and were adopting too many of the habits and practices of the idolatrous occupying forces ... |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 02:11:02 PM · #400 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, if I'm wrong then it all doesn't really matter, does it?
Even then, if I fully believe the road is washed out ahead, shouldn't I tell someone else about it? I would expect the same of others. If they did so and were incorrect, I wouldn't fault their intentions, just their information. |
Sure it matters.
First, this is the zero cost fallacy. Just by tithing, and dedicating your time(the most precious resource any of us have), you bear significant burden.
Secondly, for the rest of us, it does matter because as was noted by Jeb above, the carrot/stick approach tends to really bother some of us. Me especially.
Oh, and I do think I'm just trying to explain to you why the road is washed out even though it might look like a great route, yet somehow you do seem to manage to fault my intentions, contrary to your assertion above. :)
Message edited by author 2013-05-02 14:13:44. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 05:26:14 AM EDT.
